ReviewJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2025
'Consider a Less Risky Alternative': Navigating Ethics Approval in Suicide Research.
Review in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The #chatsafe Youth Participation Model: Evaluating Participatory Workshops Involving Young People in the Design of Suicide Prevention Initiatives.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
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
This paper discusses key themes from the literature on navigating institutional ethics approval for suicide research. We used a narrative review approach to identify recurring issues that Research Ethics Committees (RECs) commonly raise as concerns and the strategies that might be effective to manage the intricacies of institutional processes. Six dominant themes were: risk aversion overshadowing benefits of suicide research; participant agency and informed consent; ethically reflexive practice is not supported through current processes; dominance of quantitative research tradition; lack of standardisation in RECs decision-making; and lack of evidence on risk in suicide research. Four strategies to navigate institutional ethics approval were: relationship-building and dialogue between researchers and RECs; researcher safeguarding strategies; supporting ethically reflexive practice of the researcher; and RECs processes are evidence-based and provide ethical justification. We suggest how to improve institutional ethics processes specifically for suicide research and highlight the need for more insight into REC members' perspectives.
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.