Literature DB >> 16186612

Teaching medical students to discern ethical problems in human clinical research studies.

Laura Weiss Roberts1, Teddy D Warner, Katherine A Green Hammond, Janet L Brody, Alexis Kaminsky, Brian B Roberts.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Investigators and institutional review boards are entrusted with ensuring the conduct of ethically sound human studies. Assessing ethical aspects of research protocols is a key skill in fulfilling this duty, yet no empirically validated method exists for preparing professionals to attain this skill.
METHOD: The authors performed a randomized controlled educational intervention, comparing a criteria-based learning method, a clinical-research- and experience-based learning method, and a control group. All 300 medical students enrolled at the University of New Mexico School of Medicine in 2001 were invited to participate. After a single half-hour educational session, a written posttest of ability to detect ethical problems in hypothetical protocol vignettes was administered. The authors analyzed responses to ten protocol vignettes that had been evaluated independently by experts. For each vignette, a global assessment of the perceived significance of ethical problems and the identification of specific ethical problems were evaluated.
RESULTS: Eighty-three medical students (27%) volunteered: 50 (60%) were women and 55 (66%) were first- and second-year students. On global assessments, the criteria-focused group perceived ethical problems as more significant than did the other two groups (p < .02). Students in the criteria-focused group were better able than students in the control group (p < .03) to discern specific ethical problems, more closely resembling expert assessments. Unexpectedly, the group focused on clinical research participants identified fewer problems than did the control group (p < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: The criteria-focused intervention produced enhanced ethical evaluation skills. This work supports the potential value of empirically derived methods for preparing professionals to discern ethical aspects of human studies.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bioethics and Professional Ethics; Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16186612     DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200510000-00012

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  7 in total

Review 1.  [Medical ethics teaching].

Authors:  Alena M Buyx; Bruce Maxwell; Holger Supper; Bettina Schöne-Seifert
Journal:  Wien Klin Wochenschr       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.704

2.  Are Ethics Training Programs Improving? A Meta-Analytic Review of Past and Present Ethics Instruction in the Sciences.

Authors:  Logan L Watts; Kelsey E Medeiros; Tyler J Mulhearn; Logan M Steele; Shane Connelly; Michael D Mumford
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2016-05-27

Review 3.  Review of Instructional Approaches in Ethics Education.

Authors:  Tyler J Mulhearn; Logan M Steele; Logan L Watts; Kelsey E Medeiros; Michael D Mumford; Shane Connelly
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-07-07       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  A Meta-analytic Comparison of Face-to-Face and Online Delivery in Ethics Instruction: The Case for a Hybrid Approach.

Authors:  E Michelle Todd; Logan L Watts; Tyler J Mulhearn; Brett S Torrence; Megan R Turner; Shane Connelly; Michael D Mumford
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-02-01       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Ethics and Science in the Participatory Era: A Vignette-Based Delphi Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth Bromley; Lisa Mikesell; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-07-10       Impact factor: 1.742

6.  A Sensemaking Approach to Ethics Training for Scientists: Preliminary Evidence of Training Effectiveness.

Authors:  Michael D Mumford; Shane Connelly; Ryan P Brown; Stephen T Murphy; Jason H Hill; Alison L Antes; Ethan P Waples; Lynn D Devenport
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2008-10-01

Review 7.  Interventions to prevent misconduct and promote integrity in research and publication.

Authors:  Ana Marusic; Elizabeth Wager; Ana Utrobicic; Hannah R Rothstein; Dario Sambunjak
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2016-04-04
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.