Literature DB >> 15491894

Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees.

Sarah Dyer1.   

Abstract

This paper seeks to raise questions about the growing emphasis on public participation in decision-making in the health service. It examines the case study of lay participation on Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs'). In the light of contested theoretical conceptions of the value of lay participation and an absence of a centrally defined role this paper examines practice. It uses qualitative evidence collected in 45 semi-structured interviews with committee members and observations of twenty committee meetings. It examines members' own conceptualisations of lay involvement and the contributions they are able to make in meetings as a result of these conceptualisations. It concludes that without better-defined roles for lay members on these committees they do not possess the authority or knowledge to challenge the experts' technical rendering of research.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15491894     DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Place        ISSN: 1353-8292            Impact factor:   4.078


  10 in total

1.  Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Louise Maranda
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.742

2.  From rhetoric to reality: including patient voices in supportive cancer care planning.

Authors:  Sara K Tedford Gold; Julia Abelson; Cathy A Charles
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees.

Authors:  C A Schuppli; D Fraser
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-05       Impact factor: 2.903

Review 4.  A systematic review of the impact of patient and public involvement on service users, researchers and communities.

Authors:  Jo Brett; Sophie Staniszewska; Carole Mockford; Sandra Herron-Marx; John Hughes; Colin Tysall; Rashida Suleman
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 3.883

5.  Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.

Authors:  Jill Thompson; Rosemary Barber; Paul R Ward; Jonathan D Boote; Cindy L Cooper; Christopher J Armitage; Georgina Jones
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-04-22       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Challenges to the Development and Implementation of Public Policies to Achieve Animal Welfare Outcomes.

Authors:  Margaret Rose
Journal:  Animals (Basel)       Date:  2010-12-31       Impact factor: 2.752

7.  User involvement in ageing and health research: a survey of researchers' and older adults' perspectives.

Authors:  Maya Kylén; Björn Slaug; Oskar Jonsson; Susanne Iwarsson; Steven M Schmidt
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2022-09-01

8.  Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research?

Authors:  Edwin R van Teijlingen; Flora Douglas; Nicola Torrance
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2008-11-28       Impact factor: 3.295

9.  Reputational Risk, Academic Freedom and Research Ethics Review.

Authors:  Adam Hedgecoe
Journal:  Sociology       Date:  2015-06-25

10.  Young people's views about the purpose and composition of research ethics committees: findings from the PEARL qualitative study.

Authors:  Suzanne Audrey; Lindsey Brown; Rona Campbell; Andy Boyd; John Macleod
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2016-09-02       Impact factor: 2.652

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.