Discuss the necessity of ethical oversight for participant-led research.

Ethical oversight necessary for participant-led research Gold, Ashley . FierceHealthIT ; Newton (Mar 13, 2013).

ProQuest document link

FULL TEXT  

Online social networks have been used for regulating personal health and for research, but ethical oversight is

necessary for continued health research that will make an impact, according to a recent study published in PLOS

Medicine.

As the study’s authors point out, participant-led research–often described as “participant driven,” “crowd sourced,”

or “participant centric” research–has appeared in top biomedical journals, calling into question the requirements

for ethical oversight. They list six areas of probable relevance for ethical oversight for what they’ve generalized as

participant-led research (PLR): institutionalization, state recognition and support, incentive structures, openness,

bottom-up approach and self-experimentation.

“PLR is not only potentially an exercise of personal autonomy an empowerment on the part of those involved, it is

also an avenue for pursuing research into topics that are overlooked or sidelined by the scientific establishment,”

the authors say.

They contend that the most important justification for ethical research with people is to protect research

participants. “Can PLR achieve the scientific rigor needed to complement standard health research?” the

researchers ask. “And, if so, how can it be conducted ethically?”

Giving examples of different types of past PLR, the authors propose three different categories of ethical oversight.

Category one includes PLR “carried out by agents that satisfy the “institution-plus” criterion, i.e., they are

institutions that are either state-recognized, even if not state-supported, or are engaged in profit-making.” Category

two is for research that involves more than minimal risk to participants, and proposes possibly using crowd-

sourcing for ethics review. Category three proposes that no ethical review is required if the research doesn’t pose

more than minimal harm to participants.

The authors conclude that “PLR holds out the alluring prospect of citizen engagementin the co-production of

knowledge with the scientific community. But like any form of scientific research involving human participants it is

subject to ethical as well as scientific standards of appraisal.”

In late February an essay published in Science Translational Medicine discussed the question of if researchers can

ethically use health information that people openly reveal about themselves online

(http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/consent-online-research-calls-transparency-innovation/2013-02-21) . Study

author Jeffrey Kahn of JohnsHopkins said in the essay, while the web is dense with information, it “should not be

turned into the Wild West of health research; rather, its unique features must be used to effectively and creatively

satisfy the ethical requirements of the research consent process.”

To learn more:

– read the study (http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001402) in PLOS

Medicine

Related Articles:

Consent for online research calls for transparency, innovation (http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/consent-

online-research-calls-transparency-innovation/2013-02-21)http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1466242381?accountid=4485http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/1466242381?accountid=4485

EHR system poses barriers to biobank consent process (http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/ehr-system-poses-

barriers-biobank-consent-process/2012-08-10)

Online tools, social media ease clinical recruiting, research (http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/online-tools-

social-media-ease-clinical-recruiting-research/2012-02-09)

Patients have questions about HIE data (http://www.fiercehealthit.com/story/patients-have-few-requests-

participating-hie/2013-01-11) DETAILS

LINKS Get It! @ ASU, Get It! @ ASU

Database copyright  2019 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions Contact ProQuest

Publication title: FierceHealthIT; Newton

Publication year: 2013

Publication date: Mar 13, 2013

Publisher: Questex, LLC

Place of publication: Newton

Country of publication: United States, Newton

Publication subject: Computers–Information Science And Information Theory

Source type: Trade Journals

Language of publication: English

Document type: News

ProQuest document ID: 1466242381

Document URL: http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/14

66242381?accountid=4485

Copyright: Copyright 2013 FierceHealthIT

Last updated: 2013-12-10

Database: ABI/INFORM Collection,Advanced Technologies &Aerospace Collectionhttps://arizona-asu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01ASU/01ASU_SP?genre=article&atitle=Ethical%20oversight%20necessary%20for%20participant-led%20research&author=Gold,%20Ashley&volume=&issue=&spage=&date=2013&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=FierceHealthIT&issn=&isbn=&sid=ProQ:abitrade_%20https://arizona-asu-primo.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/openurl/01ASU/01ASU_SP?genre=article&atitle=Ethical%20oversight%20necessary%20for%20participant-led%20research&author=Gold,%20Ashley&volume=&issue=&spage=&date=2013&rft.btitle=&rft.jtitle=FierceHealthIT&issn=&isbn=&sid=ProQ:abitrade_%20https://search.proquest.com/info/termsAndConditionshttp://www.proquest.com/go/pqissupportcontact

  • Ethical oversight necessary for participant-led research
 

"Is this question part of your assignment? We Can Help!"

Essay Writing Service