ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2002
Supporting ethical practice in primary care research: strategies for action.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community views on the secondary use of general practice data: Findings from a mixed-methods study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024Article
- Sharing patient data: competing demands of privacy, trust and research in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2005Article
- Difficulties in giving fully informed consent.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Researchers in primary care share the general ethical obligations of all researchers. However, these obligations may raise different issues in the unique context of primary care. Current professional ethical guidance for primary care research is complex and fragmentary. The newly introduced research governance framework does not specifically address primary care research, and recent changes in legal requirements have significant implications for research. In this paper, ethical issues arising from research in primary care are considered, current standards and resources are described, and strategies for supporting ethical practice are discussed. Four ethical issues are discussed: consent and competence; confidentiality; power relations; and procedural issues. In the final part of the paper, broad strategies to support ethical practice in primary care research are recommended. These include education and resources, greater clarity of relevant standards, financial support, a greater role for primary care networks, and greater public debate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
12528589PMC1314473What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.