Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29941000›Full record

ArticleTrials2018

Accommodating quality and service improvement research within existing ethical principles.

Cory E Goldstein, Charles Weijer, Jamie C Brehaut, Marion Campbell, Dean A Fergusson, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Karla Hemming, Austin R Horn, Monica Taljaard

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Trials, 2018. 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
–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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Cory E GoldsteinRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada. cgoldst2@uwo.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0229-5039
Charles WeijerRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada.
Jamie C BrehautClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Marion CampbellHealth Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Jeremy M GrimshawClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.
Karla HemmingInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Austin R HornRotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, London, Canada.
Monica TaljaardClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office HSRU1CIHR PJT - 153045Department of Health SRF-2017-10-002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance. MAIN BODY: Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views.

conclusionWhile none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research.

Indexed as

Ethics Committees, ResearchResearch DesignDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansPolicy MakingQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareEthicsInformed consentQuality and service improvement researchRegulationResearch ethics committees

Identifiers

PMID29941000
PMCPMC6019798

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.