Search

The proportion of research misconduct cases among trainees in the biomedical sciences has risen, raising the question of why, and what are the responsibilities of research administrators and the research community to address this problem. Although there is no definitive research about causes, for trainees the relationship with a research mentor should play a major role in preventing actions that constitute research misconduct (fabrication, falsification and plagiarism). Examination of the limited literature and of the number of cases closed by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI) between 2009 and 2013 raises questions about the mentor-student relationship and what it should be accomplishing. But many gaps in policy and its implementation inhibit this role. There is no acknowledgement of mentorship in federal regulations and research on how to teach research integrity is woefully underdeveloped, especially for international trainees. And some institutional research integrity officers may have had little preparation for the role.

There are a number of important documents that provide guidance in the consideration of library services supporting nursing programs and students at a distance. Standards are available from the National League for Nursing Accrediting Commission (NLNAC), the American Association of Colleges of Nursing (AACN), and the Commission on Collegiate Nursing Education (CCNE). In addition, the Association of College and Research Libraries' (ACRL) "Guidelines for Distance Learning Library Services" offers interested parties another option, as do the more recently published "Information Literacy Competency Standards for Higher Education." This paper reports on a survey concerning these documents and their usefulness to those planning or enhancing library services in support of distance nursing programs and students. (Contains 21 notes.)

To purchase or authenticate to the full-text of this article, please visit this link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2007.00550.x Byline: BARBARA K. REDMAN (1) Keywords: ethics; self-management; chronic disease Abstract: ABSTRACT Patient self-management (SM) of chronic disease is an evolving movement, with some forms documented as yielding important outcomes. Potential benefits from proper preparation and maintenance of patient SM skills include quality care tailored to the patient's preferences and life goals, and increase in skills in problem solving, confidence and success, generalizable to other parts of the patient's life. Four central ethical issues can be identified: 1) insufficient patient/family access to preparation that will optimize their competence to SM without harm to themselves, 2) lack of acknowledgement that an ethos of patient empowerment can mask transfer of responsibility beyond patient/family competency to handle that responsibility, 3) prevailing assumptions that preparation for SM cannot result in harm and that its main purpose is to deliver physician instructions, and 4) lack of standards for patient selection, which has the potential to exclude individuals who could benefit from learning to SM. Technology assessment offers one framework through which to examine available data about efficacy of patient SM and to answer the central question of what conditions must be put in place to optimize the benefits of SM while assuring that potential harms are controlled. Author Affiliation: (1)Wayne State University, and University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics Article note: Barbara K. Redman, PhD, RN, FAAN, Dean and Professor, College of Nursing, Wayne State University, Cohn Building, Suite 12, 5557 Cass Avenue, Detroit, MI 48202. Ae9080@wayne.edu

There were eighteen Research Ethics Committees (RECs) operating in Ghana as of December 2019 but no empirical assessment of their operational characteristics had been conducted. We assessed the characteristics of Ghanaian RECs using an existing Self-Assessment Tool for RECs in Developing Countries. We present results from nine RECs that participated in this nation-wide assessment. Our results indicate that the RECs are generally adherent to the recommendations in the Tool including being composed of members with diverse expertise. They also reviewed and approved research protocols as well as had access to some limited funding for their activities. There is no national policy on research human protections or an ethics authority to regulate the activities of the RECs. We recommend the establishment of this authority in Ghana while encouraging institutions to sustain efforts aimed at making their RECs operate independently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article summarizes the body of research about ethical conflicts described by nurses in various fields of basis for and recommends direction for the use and extension of this information. [...]

Healthcare rationing during pandemics has been widely discussed in global bioethics literature. However, existing scenarios and analyses have focused on high income countries, except for very few disease areas such as HIV treatment where some analyses related to African countries exist. We argue that the lack of scholastic discourse, and by extension, professional and democratic engagement on the subject constitute an unacceptable ethical omission. Not only have African governments failed to develop robust ethical plans for pandemics, ethicists in this region have been unable to ignite public discourse on rationing. Therefore, we aim to initiate a debate on how rationing health and social goods could be done ethically in Ghana during the current and future pandemics. The paper discusses and critiques some moral considerations (utilitarian, equity, equal worth, urgent need, and the prioritarian principles) for rationing and their relevance in the Ghanaian context. This contribution may facilitate ethical decision-making during the current (COVID-19) pandemic - in Ghana and other African settings where hardly any rationing guidelines exist [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The federal research misconduct regulations finalized in 2005 did not incorporate important principles regarding human subjects protections articulated in The Belmont Report, yet research misconduct can involve harms to research subjects and to subsequent patients whose treatments are based on false research findings. Consistency with the Belmont principles would require assuring regular monitoring to detect research misconduct, tracing effects of research misconduct on trial participants and informing them of these effects, and assuring timely correction of published reports of research findings if research misconduct related to the study was subsequently discovered. Research misconduct has historically been viewed as a matter for the scientific community to manage; it is actually a threat to the welfare of human subjects and ethically ought to be treated as such. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Generic Baccalaureate Nursing Data Project is described, which surveyed: enrollment trends, budget and support services for nursing programs, faculty development and workload determinants, and collaborative arrangements between nursing programs and clinical agencies. (Author/MLW)

Enrollment trend data are reported and analyzed for each degree level (general baccalaureate, registered nursing baccalaureate, master's, and doctoral), institution type (public, private, religious, four-year, university, and academic health center), region (west, northeast, south, and midwest), and student attendance status (part- and full-time). (MSE)

A survey of 220 nursing school deans and 749 seniors revealed that most schools do not lack qualified applicants or have enrollment problems. Most admit second degree students, and some have programs for them. Most do special recruiting from racial and ethnic groups and inner-city or rural areas. (MSE)

The article focuses on the challenges faced by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) in addressing scientific misconduct, citing issues of underfunding, lack of resources, and a need for revised authority; it discusses the proposed changes by ORI, including clarifications of terms and processes, but emphasizes the limitations that hinder the office's effectiveness.

Background: U.S. physicians may treat a patient with an investigational drug outside of a clinical trial by using the expanded access (EA) pathway or the recently created federal right to try (RTT) pathway. The EA pathway requires physicians to get prior permission from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and, except in emergency cases, institutional review board (IRB) approval. The perspectives of IRB professionals on the review of single-patient EA requests have not been empirically studied. Methods: We used a cross-sectional online survey to ascertain IRB professionals' perspectives on IRB experiences with and preparedness for review of single-patient EA requests, as well as their attitudes about the importance of IRB review of such requests. Email invitations were sent to 234 IRB professionals connected to the SMART IRB platform. Approximately half of the survey questions used a Likert scale to assess respondents' agreement with specific statements. Results: Eighty-three respondents completed the survey (36.4% response rate, with 228 deliverable e-mail invitations). Of the respondents, 73.5% were affiliated with an academic medical institution; 78.3% of respondents agreed that it is important for a designated member of an IRB to review single-patient EA requests before investigational drugs are used by patients. The majority indicated that local review of the EA request was important and that a single designated reviewer was sufficient (rather than full board). Further, 86.6% felt that their IRBs were prepared to review these requests, and 9.2% indicated that not all the single-patient EA requests reviewed by their IRBs in 2017 were approved. Conclusions: A large majority of IRB professionals affiliated with the SMART IRB platform who responded to this survey felt IRB review of single-patient EA requests is important and that their IRBs were prepared to handle such requests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author analyzes the maturational process of patient education programs and describes the issues and problems that must be resolved to turn fragmented efforts into a strong, comprehensive program. (Author/CT)

This article reflects on the relevance and applicability of the Belmont Report nearly four decades after its original publication. In an exploration of criticisms that have been raised in response to the report and of significant changes that have occurred within the context of biomedical research, five primary themes arise. These themes include the increasingly vague boundary between research and practice, unique harms to communities that are not addressed by the principle of respect for persons, and how growing complexity and commodification in research have shed light on the importance of transparency. The repercussions of Belmont's emphasis on the protection of vulnerable populations is also explored, as is the relationship between the report's ethical principles and their applications. It is concluded that while the Belmont Report was an impressive response to the ethical issues of its day, the field of research ethics involving human subjects may have outgrown it. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Current policies for dealing with research misconduct emphasize the role and responsibility of individuals. Evidence from social psychology, however, shows that the environment determines personal conduct. Research misconduct policies should address these institutional factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: It has been more than two decades since the only interview study of whistleblowers in academic research. There remains a need to appreciate whistleblower experience, role in scientific integrity, and whether policies provide adequate protection.Methods: We contacted the institutional official for research, the institutional review board (IRB) director, and the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) director from a random sample of 25 of the highest 200 NIH funded institutions. We assessed the willingness of respondents to send a hypothetical solicitation letter to whistleblowers who had lodged complaints related to research.Results: The response rate was 41%. Despite a willingness to distribute a solicitation letter (68% respondents), most wanted further institutional approval before sending it (76%).Conclusion: Data from this pilot study suggest substantial obstacles to obtaining access to whistleblowers by way of anonymous solicitation letters distributed by institutions. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background:In an earlier study, we described the impact of formal misconduct determinations on established scientists’ careers, showing that many retained scientific careers, and more than half (51%) continued to publish at least one paper per year after their cases were decided. Here, we extend our study to examine the ramifications of final misconduct findings by the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) on the careers of postdoctoral fellows.Methods:We tracked publication histories and attempted to track down all postdoctoral trainees found by ORI to have committed misconduct, and attempted to interview them about their experiences.Results:Trainees found to have committed misconduct between 1993 and 2007 whom we could trace were less likely to continue to publish than more established scientists, with only 11% publishing more than one paper per year after their misconduct determinations. Our assessment is constrained by our inability to reliably trace postdoctoral fellows, reflecting the fact that a majority of U.S. postdocs are from other countries.Conclusions:Because of concern about the fairness of severe punishment of trainees, the U.S. Office of Research Integrity appears to be shifting from funding debarments toward requiring education, mentorship, and oversight for trainees, which may enhance the likelihood of rehabilitation. Whether this policy succeeds remains to be seen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents author's views on chronic disease, futility. He discusses several facts which includes efforts of governments for controlling the impact chronic disease on health and economic effects, patient self-management (PSM) as policy that detects and manages the symptoms and treatment, physical and psychological consequences of chronic conditions and assumptions for adequate PSM practice.

Adherence of patients to transplantation regimens has been problematic. Patient self-management of the chronic diseases that frequently lead to transplantation is now the standard of practice, although that practice has been incompletely implemented. Through its focus on developing patients' skills and confidence in their ability to perform medical management, maintain important life roles, and manage the negative emotions that often accompany chronic conditions, patient self-management has the potential to support effective adherence of patients in an ethically satisfactory way. A professional decision to transplant should carry with it a commitment to help patients self-manage, including patients with low levels of literacy. Viewing adherence as patients' work to be accomplished within a framework of patient self-management offers an option for improving transplant outcomes. Testing this option is an important next step. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Patient self-management (PSM) of varying portions of therapy for chronic illness is expanding. However, several current conditions of practice are ethically problematic. Standards remain process-oriented, and accountability for patient outcomes and quality of practice of both patient and provider is diffuse. PSM carries important benefits but largely unmonitored potential harms. Also, access to preparation for safe PSM appears to be skewed in favour of high socio-economic classes. This condition persists even though available evidence supports the conclusion that less advantaged patients with poor disease outcomes can be taught to self-manage, albeit they require more intensive and prolonged interventions. Routine clinical use of well-validated measurement instruments could serve to develop evidence-based standards of PSM, quality improvement and effective public policy. Development of a standard dataset would facilitate description of the effectiveness of existing programmes and comparison across programmes. Such reform will require investment in the development of instruments that measure patient ability to make sound clinical judgements and sustain PSM over changed disease and social conditions. It will take advantage of modern psychometric theory, which is increasingly necessary for building the empirical base for evidence-based healthcare. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]