Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35601584›Full record

ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2021

Guiding Ethics Review in Pharmacy Education Research and Scholarship at UBC: Clarifying the Unclear.

Simon P Albon, Franklin Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Simon P AlbonUniversity of British Columbia, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Franklin HuUniversity of British Columbia, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Vancouver, British Columbia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While it goes without saying that ethically sound practices are imperative for high-quality educational scholarship, institutional ethics guidance is often unclear about how to treat educational scholarship generally, and quality improvement/assurance studies and the scholarship of teaching and learning, specifically. Amongst health profession education researchers, including those in pharmacy, this lack of clarity has led to confusion regarding existing ethics governance and ambivalence regarding ethics requirements. Drawing on the experiences of one pharmacy school in western Canada, this commentary describes an ethics vetting guide developed explicitly to address current uncertainty about ethics requirements for pharmacy education scholarship. Clarifying the problem, describing the guide, and exploring what was learned along the way provide a basis for re-centering ethics in the development of scholarly projects and decision-making regarding formal ethics review. The importance of instilling ethical intelligence, delineating research from quality improvement/assurance work, and addressing current gaps in ethics oversight and governance of educational scholarship are among key lessons learned during guide development along with suggestions for new institutional ethics guidance directly targeting educational scholarship to supplement current national guidelines.

Indexed as

educational scholarshipethics reviewethics vetting guidequality assurance/improvementscholarship of teaching and learning

Identifiers

PMID35601584
PMCPMC9120004

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.