Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24025591›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2013

Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand.

Pornpimon Adams, Waranya Wongwit, Krisana Pengsaa, Srisin Khusmith, Wijitr Fungladda, Warissara Chaiyaphan, Chanthima Limphattharacharoen, Sukanya Prakobtham, Jaranit Kaewkungwal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Risk Assessment of Medical Study Procedures in the Documents Submitted to a Research Ethics Committee.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020
    Article
  3. 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

9 authors.

Pornpimon AdamsDepartment of Tropical Hygiene, Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand. jaranit.kae@mahidol.ac.th.
Waranya Wongwit
Krisana Pengsaa
Srisin Khusmith
Wijitr Fungladda
Warissara Chaiyaphan
Chanthima Limphattharacharoen
Sukanya Prakobtham
Jaranit Kaewkungwal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRecruiting minorities into research studies requires special attention, particularly when studies involve "extra-vulnerable" participants with multiple vulnerabilities, e.g., pregnant women, the fetuses/neonates of ethnic minorities, children in refugee camps, or cross-border migrants. This study retrospectively analyzed submissions to the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine (FTM-EC) in Thailand. Issues related to the process and outcomes of proposal review, and the main issues for which clarification/revision were requested on studies, are discussed extensively.

methodsThe study data were extracted from proposals and amendments submitted to the FTM-EC during the period October 2009 - September 2012, and then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The main issues for clarification/revision were analyzed by thematic content analysis.

results373 proposals were submitted; 44 studies involved minority groups with 21 extra-vulnerable minorities. All clinical and 2/3 of non-clinical studies submitted for initial review underwent full-board review. For combined clinical and non-clinical study submissions, 92.1% were referred back to the investigators and approved after clarification/revision, while 2.7% were deferred due to major/critical changes, and 2.1% not approved due to substantial violations of ethical principles. The main issues needing clarification/revision differed between all studies and those involving minorities: participant information sheet (62.2% vs. 86.4%), informed consent/assent form (51.2% vs. 86.4%), and research methodology (80.7% vs. 84.1%), respectively. The main ethical issues arising during the meetings, regarding studies involving minorities, included ensuring no exploitation, coercion, or pressure on the minority to participate; methodology not affecting their legal status; considering ethnicity and cultural structure; and providing appropriate compensation.

conclusionDelays in the approval or non-approval of studies involving minorities were mainly due to major or minor deviations from acceptable ethical standards and/or unclear research methodology. The FTM-EC has employed several mechanisms in its operations, including transparency in the review process, building good relationships via open communication with investigators, requesting investigators to consider closely the necessity to enroll minority groups and the risk-benefits for individuals and their communities, and the inclusion of minority-community engagement when developing the proposal. Other effective activities include annual study-site inspections, and offering refresher courses to raise awareness of minority and vulnerability issues among researchers.

Indexed as

Ethical ReviewMinority GroupsOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareTropical MedicineVulnerable PopulationsAwarenessBiomedical ResearchClinical ProtocolsEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchFemaleFetusHumansInformed ConsentPatient SelectionPregnant People

Identifiers

PMID24025591
PMCPMC3848561

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.