Difference between revisions of "Resource:5fb837af-4817-4081-b7c5-4013c254f689"
From The Embassy of Good Science
Marc.VanHoof (talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|Resource Type=Cases | |Resource Type=Cases | ||
|Title=Public Health Practice vs Research | |Title=Public Health Practice vs Research | ||
| − | |Is About=This is a factual case. | + | |Is About=An Institutional Review Board assesses a proposal that blurs the boundaries between research and practice. The IRB discusses issues concerning the disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys. This is a factual case. |
| − | |Important For=Researchers | + | |Important Because=The Institutional Review Board acknowledges that in order for it to come to decisions regarding issues concerning disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys, it must be able to discern those activities that are research-based from those that are practice-based. |
| + | |||
| + | The case indicates that disclosure of identifiable health information for the purposes of public health practice does not require informed consent. However, in the case of public health research, a waiver of consent is required from an IRB. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The case also demonstrates that, for situations where information would be used for both practice and research, the demands for consent fall either under the research provisions or the public health provisions, as appropriate. | ||
| + | |Important For=Researchers; Research Ethics Committees; Research Integrity Officers | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
| Line 14: | Line 19: | ||
|Has Virtue And Value=Respect | |Has Virtue And Value=Respect | ||
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data management; Consent; Privacy; Balancing Harm and Benefits; Confidentiality; Beneficence; Harm; Autonomy; Informed consent; Coercion; Aggresion; Intrusiveness; Maleficence | |Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Data management; Consent; Privacy; Balancing Harm and Benefits; Confidentiality; Beneficence; Harm; Autonomy; Informed consent; Coercion; Aggresion; Intrusiveness; Maleficence | ||
| − | |Related To Research Area=Health Sciences | + | |Related To Research Area=Health Sciences; LS 07.09 - Public health and epidemiology |
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 13:29, 10 August 2020
ResourcesCases
Public Health Practice vs Research
What is this about?
An Institutional Review Board assesses a proposal that blurs the boundaries between research and practice. The IRB discusses issues concerning the disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys. This is a factual case.
Why is this important?
The Institutional Review Board acknowledges that in order for it to come to decisions regarding issues concerning disclosure of identifiable health information, informed consent, principles of beneficence and maleficence, coercion of research subjects and the intrusiveness of surveys, it must be able to discern those activities that are research-based from those that are practice-based.
The case indicates that disclosure of identifiable health information for the purposes of public health practice does not require informed consent. However, in the case of public health research, a waiver of consent is required from an IRB.
The case also demonstrates that, for situations where information would be used for both practice and research, the demands for consent fall either under the research provisions or the public health provisions, as appropriate.
