Volume 11, Issue 1 (4-2013)
IJRM 2013, 11(1): 31-38 |
Back to browse issues page
1- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Patient Safety and Health Quality Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran , LatifnejadR@mums.ac.ir
3- Shahid Beheshti Medical Law and Ethics Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- Department of Midwifery, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Patient Safety and Health Quality Research Center, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran , LatifnejadR@mums.ac.ir
3- Shahid Beheshti Medical Law and Ethics Research Center, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (2515 Views)
Background: Research in reproductive health (RH) has been located in the core of women’s health research. Providing accurate information through conducting scientific and controlled research is essential, but increased number of research in the world especially in developing countries in RH area in order to introduce advanced technologies has been resulted in much unethical, illegal and abusive research on women, which needs particular attention to ethical issues by the practitioners who are involved in RH research.
Objective: This study was conducted to develop a practical ethical framework for RH research.
Materials and Methods: 45 expert academics and clinicians in various disciplines included in a three rounds Delphi study through purposeful sampling method. In round 1 Delphi data were gathered using open-ended questions by e-mail and answers were analyzed by conventional content analysis and the findings merged and validated with the results of a thorough literature review. Face and content validity index were determined in round 2 Delphi and consensuses were attained in round 3.
Results: Emerged categories were 1) management of the research process 2) protection of participants’ rights 3) third party consent 4) gender sensitive research and 5) conflict of interest.
Conclusion: This study has provided a practical ethical framework according to the socio-cultural context of Iran for all practitioners who are involved in research on women. Adherence to this framework may protect practitioners against unethical and illegal lawsuits and help them to respect their clients’ reproductive rights.
Objective: This study was conducted to develop a practical ethical framework for RH research.
Materials and Methods: 45 expert academics and clinicians in various disciplines included in a three rounds Delphi study through purposeful sampling method. In round 1 Delphi data were gathered using open-ended questions by e-mail and answers were analyzed by conventional content analysis and the findings merged and validated with the results of a thorough literature review. Face and content validity index were determined in round 2 Delphi and consensuses were attained in round 3.
Results: Emerged categories were 1) management of the research process 2) protection of participants’ rights 3) third party consent 4) gender sensitive research and 5) conflict of interest.
Conclusion: This study has provided a practical ethical framework according to the socio-cultural context of Iran for all practitioners who are involved in research on women. Adherence to this framework may protect practitioners against unethical and illegal lawsuits and help them to respect their clients’ reproductive rights.
Type of Study: Original Article |
References
1. Williams JR. Medical ethics manual. 1st Ed. Johnson & Johnson. 2005.
2. World Health Organization. Ethics of medicine and health. EMRO technical papers series4 .WHO-EM/PHP/1/E/G/09.08/1000. 1998. Available at: http//www.who. org. http://www.emro.who.int/rpc/pdf/ PHP-1-E-G.pdf. 18 August 2011.
3. Hackett EJ, Rhoten DR. Engaged, Embedded, Enjoined: Science and Technology Studies in the National Science Foundation. Sci Eng Ethics 2011; 17: 823-838. [DOI:10.1007/s11948-011-9307-x]
4. Larijani B, Zahedi F. Contemporary medical ethics: An overview from Iran. Dev World Bioeth 2007; 8: 192-196. [DOI:10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00180.x]
5. Bindra S, Kochhar P. Survey on Perceptions of Indian Investigators on Research Ethics. Perspect Clin Res 2010; 1: 94-97.
6. Cook RJ, Dickens BM. Considerations for formulating Reproductive health laws. World Health Organization. 2nd Ed. 2000. Available at: http://www.who.int/ topics/reproductive_health/en/. 17 August 2011.
7. Federation International of Gynecology Obstetrics/FIGO. Ethical issues in obstetrics and gynecology by the FIGO committee for the study of ethical aspects of Human Reproduction and Women Health. 2009. Available at: http://www.figo.org/files/ figo-corp/Ethical%20Issues% 202009% 20-%202012 %20pdf. pdf. 18 August 2011.
8. World Health Organization. Background paper on research priorities for quality of care. 2006. Available at: http://www.who.int/reproductive health /care/ quality of care background paper.pdf. 17 August 2011.
9. Nayak RK. Medical negligence, patient's safety and the law. Regional health forum 2004; 8: 15-23.
10. De Jong A, Dondorp WJ, Frints SG, De Die-Smulders CE, De Wert GM. Advances in prenatal screening: the ethical dimension. Nat Rev Genet 2011; 12: 657-663. [DOI:10.1038/nrg3036]
11. Thompson JB. Tomorrow's Ethics for Today's Practice. J Midwifery Womens Health 2004; 49: 173-174.
12. Khodaparast AH, Abdolahzadeh A, Rasekh M. A Critical Study of the "Six Ethical Codes for Research in Iran. J Reprod Infertil 2008; 8: 365-379.
13. E. Mohammad Nejad E, Begjani J, Abotalebi G, Salari A, Ehsani R. Nurses awareness of patients' rights in a teaching hospital. J Med Ethics Hist Med 2011; 4: 2-9.
14. Khoda Karami N, Jannesary S. Pregnant women knowledge regarding bill of rights of pregnant women. J Med Ethics Hist Med 2009; 1: 51-58.
15. Creswell JW, Plano CV. Mixed Methods Research. SAGE Publications. London. 2007.
16. Powell C. The Delphi technique: Myths and realities. Journal Advanced Nursing 2003; 41: 376-382. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x]
17. Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: Design, Statistics and Computer Analysis. 2nd Ed. Philadelphia: Davis-FA Company. 1983.
18. American Association of Physicists in Medicine. Code of Ethics for the American Association of Physicists in Medicine: Report of Task Group 109. Medical Physics 2009; 36: 3-17.
19. American Counseling Association. American Counseling Association (ACA) Code of Ethics. 2005. Available at: http//www.ncblpc.org/Laws_and_Codes/ ACA_Code_of_Ethics.pdf. 17 November 2011.
20. Strech D. Normative arguments and new solutions for the unbiased registration and publication of clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2011, in press.
21. American Psychological Association. Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist. 2002. Available at: http://www.apa.org/ ethics. 20 September 2011.
22. Whitaker DK, Brattebø G, Smith AF, Staender SE. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology: putting words into practice. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 2011; 25: 277-290. [DOI:10.1016/j.bpa.2011.02.001]
23. Brekelmans CT, Kenter MJ, Bouter LM, Koëter GH. Patient safety in clinical intervention research. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2011; 155: 23-29.
24. Panichkul S, Mahaisavariya P, Morakote N, Condo S, Caengow S, Ketunpanya A. Current status of the research ethics committees in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai 2011; 94: 1013-1018.
25. Kapiriri L, Lavery JV, Singer PA, Mshinda H, Babiuk L, Daar AS. The case for conducting first-in-human (phase 0 and phase 1) clinical trials in low and middle income countries. BMC Public Health 2011; 11: 811-818. [DOI:10.1186/1471-2458-11-811]
26. Mansour M. Methodological and ethical challenges in investigating the safety of medication administration. Nurse Res 2011; 18: 28-32. [DOI:10.7748/nr2011.07.18.4.28.c8633]
27. Kallmes DF, Buchbinder R, Miller FG. Viewpoint: Randomised controlled trials using invasive control interventions should be included in Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, in press.
28. Chung KC, Kotsis SV. The ethics of clinical research. J Hand Surg Am 2011; 36: 308-315. [DOI:10.1016/j.jhsa.2010.11.012]
29. Malmqvist E, Juth N, Lynöe N, Helgesson G. Early stopping of clinical trials: charting the ethical terrain. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2011; 21: 51-78. [DOI:10.1353/ken.2011.0002]
30. World Health Organization. Preparing a research project proposal. 3rd Ed. 2000. Available at: http//www.who.org. http://www.who.int/prpp/pdf. 20 September 2011.
31. Dondorp W, de Wert G. Innovative reproductive technologies: risks and responsibilities. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 1604-1608. [DOI:10.1093/humrep/der112]
32. Ulrich CM, Zhou Q, Ratcliffe SJ, Ye L, Grady C, Watkins-Bruner D. Nurse Practitioners' attitudes about cancer clinical trials and willingness to recommend research participation. Contemp Clin Trials 2011, in press.
33. Ben-Arye E, Ali-Shtayeh MS, Nejmi M, Schiff E, Hassan E, Mutafoglu K, et al. Integrative oncology research in the Middle East: weaving traditional and complementary medicine in supportive care. Support Care Cancer 2012; 20: 557-64
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |