Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?
Ainsley J. Newson A B and Wendy Lipworth AA Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Level 1, Medical Foundation Building K25, 92–4 Parramatta Road, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
B Corresponding author. Email: ainsley.newson@sydney.edu.au
Health Promotion Journal of Australia 26(3) 170-175 https://doi.org/10.1071/HE15034
Submitted: 8 May 2015 Accepted: 1 September 2015 Published: 9 November 2015
Journal Compilation © Australian Health Promotion Association 2015
Abstract
Issue addressed: Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authors who have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why journals should not, in general, publish articles describing research that has no ethics approval, with particular attention to the health promotion context.
Methods: Using theoretical bioethical reasoning and drawing on a case study, we first rebut some potential criticisms of the need for research ethics approval. We then outline four positive claims to justify a presumption that research should, in most instances, be published only if it has been undertaken with HREC approval.
Results: We present four justifications for requiring ethics approval before publication: (1) HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (2) the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated; (3) obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (4) obtaining HREC approval demonstrates respect for persons.
Conclusion: This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of why research ethics approval should generally be obtained before publishing in the health promotion context.
So what?: Journals such as the Health Promotion Journal of Australia have recently begun to require research ethics approval for publishing research. Health promotion researchers will be interested in learning the ethical justification for this change.
Key word: publication ethics.
References
[1] Martyn C (2003) The ethical bureaucracy. QJM-Int J Med 96, 323–4.| The ethical bureaucracy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[2] van Teijlingen ER, Douglas F, Torrance N (2008) Clinical governance and research ethics as barriers to UK low-risk population-based health research? BMC Public Health 8, 396
[3] Wilson J, Hunter D (2010) Research exceptionalism. Am J Bioeth 10, 45–54.
| Research exceptionalism.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 20694909PubMed |
[4] CSIRO Publishing. Health Promotion Journal of Australia author instructions. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing; 2015. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/294/aid/17614.htm [Verified 17 April 2015]
[5] Graf C, Wager E, Bowman A, Fiack S, Scott-Lichter D, Robinson A (2007) Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective. Int J Clin Pract Suppl 61, 1–26.
| Best practice guidelines on publication ethics: a publisher’s perspective.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Code of conduct and best practice guidelines for journal editors. London: COPE; 2011. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/CodeofConduct.pdf [Verified 6 May 2015]
[7] Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Cases. 2015. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/cases?f%5B0%5D=im_field_classifications%3A821 [Verified 6 May 2015]
[8] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (updated March 2014). Canberra: NHMRC; 2009. Available from: http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 [Verified 6 May 2015]
[9] Hawe P, King L, Noort M, Jordens C, Lloyd B. Indicators to help with capacity building in health promotion. Sydney: NSW Health and Australian Centre for Health Promotion; 2015. Available from: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2000/capbuild.html [Verified 20 September 2015]
[10] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities. Canberra: NHMRC; 2014. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e111 [Verified 20 September 2015]
[11] Lowitja Institute. Developing a health information system to support continuous improvement in antenatal care for Aboriginal women in the Central Australian region [Alukura]. Melbourne: Lowitja Institute; 2012. Available from: http://www.lowitja.org.au/health-information-cqi-antenatal [Verified 6 May 2015]
[12] Lynn J (2004) When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge. Qual Saf Health Care 13, 67–70.
| When does quality improvement count as research? Human subject protection and theories of knowledge.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c%2FlslSmtw%3D%3D&md5=4ecf2df35fa05619b8ae07f15bed363dCAS | 14757803PubMed |
[13] Doezema D, Hauswald M (2002) Quality improvement or research: a distinction without a difference? IRB: Eth Human Res 24, 9–12.
| Quality improvement or research: a distinction without a difference?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[14] Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Fair play for ‘researchers’: can editors and regulators develop a common approach to the need (or lack of need) for ethical review? London: COPE; 2014. Available from: http://publicationethics.org/files/u661/Foruum_Discussion_Summary_Fairplayforresearchers_final.pdf [Verified 20 April 2015]
[15] Wade DT (2005) Ethics, audit and research: all shades of grey. BMJ 330, 468–71.
| Ethics, audit and research: all shades of grey.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15731146PubMed |
[16] Tengland P-A (2012) Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion strategies. Public Health Ethics 5, 140–53.
| Behavior change or empowerment: on the ethics of health-promotion strategies.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[17] Gardner J (2014) Ethical issues in public health promotion. S Afr J Bioethics Health Law 7, 30–3.
[18] Draper H, Wilson S (2007) Research ethics approval: comprehensive mechanisms are essential but not available. Fam Pract 24, 527–8.
| Research ethics approval: comprehensive mechanisms are essential but not available.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18056088PubMed |
[19] van Teijlingen ER, Simkhada PP (2012) Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional. J Med Ethics 38, 428–30.
| Ethical approval in developing countries is not optional.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22345548PubMed |
[20] Angell EL, Bryman A, Ashcroft R, Dixon-Woods M (2008) An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 17, 131–6.
| An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD1c3is1Cksg%3D%3D&md5=8b907501496e045cd5347aa5eed18a91CAS | 18385408PubMed |
[21] Chalmers I, Nylenna M (2014) A new network to promote evidence-based research. Lancet 384, 1903–4.
| A new network to promote evidence-based research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25435440PubMed |
[22] London AJ, Borasky DA, Bhan A (2012) Improving ethical review of research involving incentives for health promotion. PLoS Med 9, e1001193
| Improving ethical review of research involving incentives for health promotion.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22479154PubMed |
[23] Terpstra J, Coleman KJ, Simon G, Nebeker C (2011) The role of community health workers (CHWs) in health promotion research: ethical challenges and practical solutions. Health Promot Pract 12, 86–93.
| The role of community health workers (CHWs) in health promotion research: ethical challenges and practical solutions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19346410PubMed |
[24] Khanlou N, Peter E (2005) Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review. Soc Sci Med 60, 2333–40.
| Participatory action research: considerations for ethical review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2M7itVWitA%3D%3D&md5=91209793940fe9aee21fb36779088815CAS | 15748680PubMed |
[25] International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals. 2014. Available from: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/ [Verified 6 May 2015]
[26] Abbasi K, Heath I (2005) Ethics review of research and audit: journals should not abdicate their responsibility. BMJ 330, 432–3.
| Ethics review of research and audit: journals should not abdicate their responsibility.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
