Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16731737›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics2006

Partnership as an ethical model for medical research in developing countries: the example of the "implementation trial".

D W Dowdy

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2014
    Review
  3. Article
  4. [Global health research challenges with a North-South partnership].Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

D W Dowdyddowdy@jhsph.edu
University of Baltimore · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The existing model for ethical review of medical research consists primarily of regulations designed to prevent exploitation of participants. This model may fail when reviewing other ethical obligations, particularly the responsibility to provide valuable knowledge to society. Such failure is most apparent in developing countries, in which many stakeholders lack incentives or power to uphold society's interests. An alternative ethical model is that of partnership, which actively involves all partners during ethical review and aims to secure partners' best interests through compromise. Unlike the existing "regulatory" model, the partnership model effectively addresses ethical obligations to provide positive benefits to society. For the partnership model to be effective, power must be shared among partners; thus, the partnership model can be harmonised with the "regulatory" model through explicit consideration of power structures. One opportunity for crafting power balance in developing countries is apparent in "implementation trials"-randomised trials motivated by and integrated into the implementation of long term public health interventions. Given the failings of the existing ethical review model, alternative models-for example, partnership-and means to balance power-for example, implementation trials-must be explored to ensure that medical research provides knowledge of value to societies in the developing world.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorEthics, ResearchDeveloping CountriesEthical ReviewHumansModels, TheoreticalPower, PsychologicalPublic HealthRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID16731737
PMCPMC2563358
OpenAlexW2113717766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.