首页> 外文期刊>Palliative medicine >Review: a narrative review of the published ethical debates in palliative care research and an assessment of their adequacy to inform research governance.
【24h】

Review: a narrative review of the published ethical debates in palliative care research and an assessment of their adequacy to inform research governance.

机译:评论:对姑息治疗研究中已发表的伦理辩论的叙述性评论,并评估其是否可为研究治理提供信息。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

The quality of research, and the resulting quality of evidence available to guide palliative care, is dependent on the ethical decisions underpinning its design, conduct and report. Whilst much has been published debating the ethics of palliative care research, an assessment of the quality and synthesis of the central debates is not available. Such a review is timely to inform research governance. The methodology of this study is based on the principles of systematic reviews. Fifty-seven papers were reviewed following a thorough search, and were critically appraised for their literary quality, the knowledge on which they drew and the research standards they addressed. The debates identified address vulnerability, moral appropriateness, consent, gate-keeping and inclusion and research culture. The quality of debate and the sources of knowledge varied. The debate was rich in quality and knowledge with respect to the protection of the dignity, rights and safety of research participants, but less developed in relation to those of researchers and other staff. There is also little debate about the ethics of reporting of research and the ethics underpinning research leadership. A framework is offered that reconciles the ethical issues raised with potential methodological strategies identified from the review.
机译:研究的质量以及由此产生的指导姑息治疗的证据的质量,取决于其设计,实施和报告的道德决策。尽管已经发表了许多有关姑息治疗研究的伦理学的文章,但尚无法评估中心辩论的质量和综合性。这样的审查是及时的,以告知研究治理。这项研究的方法是基于系统评价的原则。经过全面搜索,对57篇论文进行了审查,并对其文学质量,其所学知识和研究标准进行了严格评估。辩论确定了脆弱性,道德适当性,同意,守门和包容性以及研究文化。辩论的质量和知识的来源各不相同。在保护研究人员的尊严,权利和安全方面,辩论的质量和知识丰富,但与研究人员和其他工作人员的辩论相比,辩论还不够成熟。关于研究报告的伦理学和研究领导力的伦理学也鲜有争论。提供了一个框架,该框架可以与审查中确定的潜在方法策略所提出的道德问题相协调。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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