Literature DB >> 18935922

Debriefing and accountability in deceptive research.

Franklin G Miller1, John P Gluck, David Wendler.   

Abstract

Debriefing is a standard ethical requirement for human research involving the use of deception. Little systematic attention, however, has been devoted to explaining the ethical significance of debriefing and the specific ethical functions that it serves. In this article, we develop an account of debriefing as a tool of moral accountability for the prima facie wrong of deception. Specifically, we contend that debriefing should include a responsibility to promote transparency by explaining the deception and its rationale, to provide an apology to subjects for infringing the principle of respect for persons, and to offer subjects an opportunity to withdraw their data. We also present recommendations concerning the discussion of deception in scientific articles reporting the results of research using deception.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18935922     DOI: 10.1353/ken.0.0196

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Kennedy Inst Ethics J        ISSN: 1054-6863


  12 in total

1.  Factors affecting placebo acceptability: deception, outcome, and disease severity.

Authors:  Nkaku R Kisaalita; Daniela Roditi; Michael E Robinson
Journal:  J Pain       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 5.820

2.  Randomized evaluation of trial acceptability by INcentive (RETAIN): Study protocol for two embedded randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Dustin C Krutsinger; Jacqueline McMahon; Alisa J Stephens-Shields; Brian Bayes; Steven Brooks; Brian L Hitsman; Su Fen Lubitz; Celine Reyes; Robert A Schnoll; S Ryan Greysen; Ashley Mercede; Mitesh S Patel; Catherine Reale; Fran Barg; Jason Karlawish; Daniel Polsky; Kevin G Volpp; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2018-11-08       Impact factor: 2.226

3.  Ethics and Phishing Experiments.

Authors:  David B Resnik; Peter R Finn
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2017-08-15       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  Default options in advance directives influence how patients set goals for end-of-life care.

Authors:  Scott D Halpern; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp; Elizabeth Cooney; Kelly Vranas; Caroline M Quill; Mary S McKenzie; Michael O Harhay; Nicole B Gabler; Tatiana Silva; Robert Arnold; Derek C Angus; Cindy Bryce
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 5.  The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing.

Authors:  Franklin G Miller; Luana Colloca; Ted J Kaptchuk
Journal:  Perspect Biol Med       Date:  2009       Impact factor: 1.416

6.  How should debriefing be undertaken in web-based studies? Findings from a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Jim McCambridge; Kypros Kypri; Amanda Wilson
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2012-11-16       Impact factor: 5.428

7.  Journalists, district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle.

Authors:  Anna H Chodos; Sei J Lee
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-03-29       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  Attitudes and Perceptions Toward Authorized Deception: A Pilot Comparison of Healthy Controls and Fibromyalgia Patients.

Authors:  Susan J Goo; Eleni Frangos; Emily A Richards; Marta Ceko; Brenda L Justement; Patrick Korb; Brian T Walitt; Luana Colloca; M Catherine Bushnell
Journal:  Pain Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 3.750

9.  The use of deception in public health behavioral intervention trials: a case study of three online alcohol trials.

Authors:  Jim McCambridge; Kypros Kypri; Preben Bendtsen; John Porter
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 11.229

10.  Default options in advance directives: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.

Authors:  Nicole B Gabler; Elizabeth Cooney; Dylan S Small; Andrea B Troxel; Robert M Arnold; Douglas B White; Derek C Angus; George Loewenstein; Kevin G Volpp; Cindy L Bryce; Scott D Halpern
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-06-06       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.