Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40040296›Full record

ArticleDisasters2025

What does it mean to conduct ethical research after disasters? A case study of the 3.11 disaster in Japan.

Sudeepa Abeysinghe, Kaori Honda, Claire Leppold, Allison Lloyd Williams, Akihiko Ozaki, Aya Goto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Disasters, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

6 authors.

Sudeepa AbeysingheUniversity of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6341-3417
Kaori HondaTohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan.
Claire LeppoldMelbourne School of Population and Global Health, Australia.
Allison Lloyd WilliamsLancaster University, United Kingdom.
Akihiko OzakiJyoban Hospital of Tokiwa Foundation and Fukushima Medical University, Japan.
Aya GotoHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, United States, and Fukushima Medical University, Japan.

Funding

Great Britain Sasakawa Foundation B142
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The 3.11 disaster in Fukushima Prefecture, Japan, is a useful case study through which to interrogate research ethics. This region has been the site of a high degree of research interest, which sometimes presented a source of stress to local communities. This study examines researcher perspectives on the ethics of post-disaster health research. Qualitative interviews were conducted with these informants, who noted that recovering communities experienced significant over-research, particularly in the form of survey fatigue, which was seen to influence viewpoints concerning both recovery and agency. Efforts to integrate better into community needs reoriented reflexive research towards 'post-normal' forms of working. Simultaneously, researchers had to navigate funding and reward structures that prioritised the swift production of results. Focusing on community engagement and feedback, and managing this ethical complexity, were seen as essential forms of ethical practice to mitigate the negative impacts that the influx of research activity can have on a recovering community.

Indexed as

DisastersEarthquakesEthics, ResearchFukushima Nuclear AccidentHumansInterviews as TopicJapanQualitative Research3.11community engagementethicsFukushimainterviews

Identifiers

PMID40040296
PMCPMC11880746

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.