Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41395157›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2025

"Who are you going to call?:" Research ethics consultation directors' perspectives on barriers and facilitators.

Skye A Miner, Jennifer B McCormick, Holly A Taylor

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Skye A MinerDepartment of Economics, Sociology and Statistics, RAND, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8848-2440
Jennifer B McCormickDepartment of Humanities and Penn State Clinical and Translational Science Institute, Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, Hershey, PA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2008-8180
Holly A TaylorDepartment of Bioethics, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6811-9356

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Research ethics consultation services (RECS) provide important ethical guidance to various entities, including investigators and Institutional Review Boards. Established in the late 1980s and influenced by funding requirements from the National Center for Advancing Translational Science, RECS have evolved to address ethical challenges in research. This study aimed to identify key barriers and facilitators affecting the success of RECS, particularly in light of changes in funding and institutional support. Materials and methods: From a comprehensive list of 55 Clinical and Translational Science Award programs, 20 RECS were purposively sampled for in-depth interviews. Interviews focused on primary functions, accomplishments, barriers, and facilitators of the service. We performed an abductive analysis on transcribed data. Results: Twenty-two research ethics consultants from 20 institutions participated. Respondents emphasized their services' goal of facilitating ethical research, though many faced barriers such as underutilization and lack of awareness among researchers. Facilitators included institutional support and funding. Support often was contingent on institutional leadership facilitating the service into the university's research enterprise. Participants reported accomplishments, including successful consultations and contributions to institutional policies. Discussion: Our findings indicate that RECS play a crucial role in supporting ethical research practices, though their effectiveness is often contingent on institutional relationships and funding. Key recommendations include tracking consults, defining consultation outcomes, and fostering the development of new consultants to sustain the field of research ethics.

Indexed as

bioethicsCTSAethicsqualitative interviewsResearch ethics

Identifiers

PMID41395157
PMCPMC12695485

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.