Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines

BMC Medical Ethics

Research Article

Péter Kakuk¹  Goran Mijaljica²  Marcin Waligóra³  Signe Mezinska⁴  Dónal P. O’Mathúna⁵ 

[1] Department of Behavioural Sciences, Faculty of Public Health, University of Debrecen, Debrecen, Hungary;Department of Medical Humanities, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia;Department of Philosophy and Bioethics, REMEDY, Research Ethics in Medicine Study Group, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland;Faculty of Medicine, University of Latvia, Riga, Latvia;School of Nursing and Human Sciences, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland;

关键词: Disaster;    Disaster research;    Ethics guidelines;    Research ethics;    Research ethics committee;    Vulnerability;   

DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7

 received in 2016-06-25, accepted in 2016-10-14,  发布年份 2016

来源: Springer

【 摘 要 】

BackgroundConducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM).MethodsWe performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines.ResultsFourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified.ConclusionsSome concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines.

【 授权许可】

CC BY   
© The Author(s). 2016