首页> 外文期刊>BMC Medical Ethics >Differences and structural weaknesses of institutional mechanisms for health research ethics: Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and Democratic Republic of the Congo
【24h】

Differences and structural weaknesses of institutional mechanisms for health research ethics: Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and Democratic Republic of the Congo

机译:卫生研究伦理的体制机制的差异和结构弱点:布基纳法索,巴勒斯坦,秘鲁和刚果民主共和国

获取原文
           

摘要

Regardless of national contexts, the institutions responsible for research ethics, founded on international regulations, are all expected to be structured and to operate in a common way. Our experience with several countries on different continents, however, has raised questions in this regard. This article examines the differences and structural weaknesses of ethics committees in four countries (Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) where we have conducted the same socio-anthropological study in the field of reproductive health. In addition to recording our observations during field surveys for this study, we performed a documentary review and interviewed expert members of ethics committees, research participants, and researchers who had experience with requesting ethics approvals for research protocols in the field of social sciences and health. The results of this study showed that, despite having the same mandate, the committees functioned differently, while they all exhibited the same weaknesses. Thus, the universalization and standardization of institutional conditions for applying ethical standards in research still present problems that are, at the very least, relevant. This study on ethics committees in four countries demonstrated the profound influence of context on the ways in which different institutions function and enforce regulations. In effect, in all social fields, every innovation is infused by its context.
机译:无论国情如何,都应根据国际法规建立负责研究伦理的机构,并以共同的方式运作。但是,我们在不同大洲的几个国家的经验在这方面提出了疑问。本文研究了四个国家(布基纳法索,巴勒斯坦,秘鲁和刚果民主共和国)伦理委员会的差异和结构缺陷,我们在生殖健康领域进行了相同的社会人类学研究。除了在实地调查中记录本研究的观察结果之外,我们还进行了文献审查,并采访了道德委员会的专家成员,研究参与者和研究人员,这些专家在为社会科学和卫生领域的研究协议申请伦理批准方面经验丰富。这项研究的结果表明,尽管委员会具有相同的任务授权,但其职能却有所不同,尽管它们都表现出相同的弱点。因此,在研究中应用伦理标准的制度条件的普遍化和标准化仍然至少存在相关的问题。这项对四个国家的伦理委员会的研究表明,背景对不同机构运作和执行法规的方式产生了深远的影响。实际上,在所有社会领域,每项创新都被其上下文所注入。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号