Development and oversight of ethical health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities involving human participants
Peter SainsburyPopulation Health, South Western Sydney Local Health District, Locked Bag 7279, Liverpool, NSW 1871, Australia. Email: peter.sainsbury@sswahs.nsw.gov.au
Health Promotion Journal of Australia 26(3) 176-181 https://doi.org/10.1071/HE15045
Submitted: 22 May 2015 Accepted: 17 September 2015 Published: 5 November 2015
Journal Compilation © Australian Health Promotion Association 2015
Abstract
Issue addressed: This paper considers the role of ethics and ethics review processes in the development of health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities involving human participants.
Content: The Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and associated documents provide the framework for the ethical conduct and independent review of research (including quality assurance and evaluation) involving humans in Australia. Identifying the level of risk to which participants may be exposed by participation in quality assurance and evaluation activities is essential for health promotion workers undertaking such activities. Organisations can establish processes other than review by a Human Research Ethics Committee for negligible and low risk research activities. Health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities often involve negligible and low risk to participants. Seven triggers that indicate the need for ethics review of quality assurance and evaluation activities and a procedural checklist for developing ethical quality assurance and evaluation activities are provided.
Conclusion: Health promotion workers should be familiar with the NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. When ethical considerations underpin the planning and conduct of all quality assurance and evaluation from the very beginning, the activity is the better for it, independent ‘ethics approval’ can mostly be secured without much trouble and workers’ frustration levels are reduced.
So what?: Health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities must be ethically justified. Health promotion workers should be familiar with the NHMRC’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research and should use it when developing health promotion quality assurance and evaluation activities.
References
[1] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC, Australian Government; 2007. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/guidelines-publications/e72 [Verified 21 May 2015].[2] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Ethical considerations in quality assurance and evaluation activities. Canberra: NHMRC, Australian Government; 2014. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e111_ethical_considerations_in_quality_assurance_140326.pdf [Verified 21 May 2015].
[3] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). National statement on ethical conduct in human research and ethical review and research involving only low or negligible risk. Canberra: NHMRC, Australian Government; 2010. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/guidelines/ethics/human_research/NS_low_risk_flow_chart.pdf [Verified 21 May 2015].
[4] National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). When does quality assurance in health care require independent ethical review? Canberra: NHMRC, Australian Government; 2003. Available from: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e46.pdf [Verified 21 May 2015].
[5] Schrag Z (2011) The case against ethics review in the social sciences. Res Ethics 7, 120–31.
| The case against ethics review in the social sciences.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[6] Jennings S (2012) Response to Schrag: what are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review. Res Ethics 8, 87–96.
| Response to Schrag: what are ethics committees for anyway? A defence of social science research ethics review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[7] Pollock K (2012) Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research. BMC Med Ethics 13, 25
| Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23016663PubMed |
[8] Malterud K (2001) Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines. Lancet 358, 483–8.
| Qualitative research: standards, challenges, and guidelines.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD3MvmvVWiug%3D%3D&md5=1b8a587cc67b0b3ddfe21964d7ff8c21CAS | 11513933PubMed |
[9] Dixon-Woods M, Shaw RL, Agarwal S, Smith JA (2004) The problem of appraising qualitative research. Qual Saf Health Care 13, 223–5.
| The problem of appraising qualitative research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c3ns12nuw%3D%3D&md5=1f5364dd2cc14c41c5573f04fa7285d2CAS | 15175495PubMed |
[10] Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19, 349–57.
| Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17872937PubMed |
[11] Blignault I, Ritchie J (2009) Revealing the wood and the trees: reporting qualitative research. Health Promot J Austr 20, 140–5.
[12] Buus N, Agdal R (2013) Can the use of reporting guidelines in peer-review damage the quality and contribution of qualitative health care research? Int J Nurs Stud 50, 1289–91.
| Can the use of reporting guidelines in peer-review damage the quality and contribution of qualitative health care research?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23507616PubMed |
