ArticleNagoya journal of medical science2022
The role of nursing members in research ethics committees in Japan.
Article in Nagoya journal of medical science, 2022. 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.
- Early-Career Nurse Researchers' Perspectives on Research Ethics Review in China: A Qualitative Descriptive Study.International nursing review · 2026Article
- Disciplinary Research Ethics Cultures in Disaster Settings: Understandings from Researchers After 3.11 in Japan.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2026Article
- How to Promote the Development of Nurses' Moral Competence According to Patient Representatives: A European Qualitative Study.Journal of nursing management · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The International Council of Nurses (2012) and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2016) determined and published ethical standards relevant to nursing researchers and practitioners; based on these standards, nurses are expected to participate in committees where decisions on ethical issues are made. While clinical practitioners and nursing educators actively serve on research ethics committees, their precise role in these platforms has yet to be elucidated. In this study, medical, humanities/social science, lay, and nursing members in research ethics committees across Japan were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview; data were analyzed through a qualitative analysis method. Specifically, we interviewed 23 research ethics committee members in Japan to clarify the role of nursing members in the committee. Our qualitative analysis yielded six themes: share perspectives and experiences in nursing, protect research participants, evaluate the research design, represent the voice of research participants, confirm the informed consent documents and ascertain research participants' free will. The analyses revealed a slight difference between what other committee members expected of the role of nursing members and nursing members' recognition of their own role. Nursing members make an important and independent contribution to ethics committees on deliberations and decision-making regarding research ethics. Within the context of research ethics committees, member selection and training are essential issues, and this study contributes to the literature by showing how these topics relate to the role of the research ethics committees and of their members.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.