Are enrollment sites the key to optimizing participation in genetic studies?

In a time when the challenge of people being over-researched and experiencing research fatigue is increasingly discussed, low participation rates and potential sample biases are a growing concern in genetic research. In a recent study assessing factors relevant to successful recruitment of patients with myocardial infarction to a genetic study, enrollment site was identified as the most important factor associated with patient participation, whereas patient-level factors such as race, gender and education played a limited or no role. These results underline the importance of appropriate recruitment routines at enrollment sites in order to reach high levels of participation in genetic research

De-tabooing dying control - a grounded theory study.

Dying is inescapable yet remains a neglected issue in modern health care. The research question in this study was "what is going on in the field of dying today?" What emerged was to eventually present a grounded theory of control of dying focusing specifically on how people react in relation to issues about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (PAS)

Editors publishing in their own journals : A systematic review of prevalence and a discussion of normative aspects

Journal editors are the main gatekeepers in scientific publishing. Yet there is a concern that they may receive preferential treatment when submitting manuscripts to their own journals. The prevalence of such self-publishing is not known, nor the consequences for reliability and trustworthiness of published research. This study aimed to systematically review the literature on the prevalence of editors publishing in their own journals and to conduct a normative ethical analysis of this practice. A systematic review was performed using the following databases: Medline, PsycInfo, Scopus and Web of Science. Articles that provided primary data about editors publishing in own journals were included. We identified 15 studies meeting inclusion criteria. There was large variability of self-publishing across fields, journals and editors, ranging from those who never published in their own journal to those publishing extensively in their own journal. Many studies suffered from serious methodological limitations. Nevertheless, our results show that there are settings where levels of self-publication are very high. We recommend that editors-in-chief and associate editors who have considerable power in journals refrain from publishing research articles in their own journals. Journals should have clear processes in place about the treatment of articles submitted by editorial board members.Peer reviewe

Company employees as experimental participants in traffic safety research : prevalence and implications

The use of company employees as experimental participants when testing products, technology or paradigms developed by the same company raises questions about bias in results and research ethics. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of studies authored by car company researchers with car company employees as participants, to assess the risk of bias in such studies, to investigate journal editors’ opinions in the field of traffic safety regarding these procedures, and to offer a general discussion about ethical and methodological implications. Three types of data were collected. We (i) examined guidelines and recommendations for authors in eleven selected peer-reviewed journals in the area of traffic safety; (ii) surveyed editors of these journals; and (iii) reviewed articles authored by researchers from a selected group of car manufacturers and published in these journals during 2011-2015. Guidelines and recommendations for authors in the included journals did not mention whether and under what circumstances company employees can be research participants, nor did publishers’ general guidelines. However, three out of the four editors who responded to our survey believed that this issue of private company researchers using participants from the same company deserves to be explicitly addressed in their journal’s guide for authors. The total number of regular articles and conference papers during 2011-2015 in the eleven journals reviewed was 6763; 95 (1.4%) listed at least one car manufacturer in the authors’ affiliations; and out of these, nine included company employees as participants. In summary, company employees are seldom (0.13%) used as research participants in traffic safety research. Nevertheless, the use of company employees as research participants raises questions about bias in results as well as about incursions into the participants’ autonomy.NoneAccepte

Company employees as experimental participants in traffic safety research : Prevalence and implications

The use of company employees as experimental participants when testing products, technology or paradigms developed by the same company raises questions about bias in results and research ethics. We aimed to investigate the prevalence of studies authored by car company researchers with car company employees as participants, to assess the risk of bias in such studies, to investigate journal editors' opinions in the field of traffic safety regarding these procedures, and to offer a general discussion about ethical and methodological implications. Three types of data were collected. We (i) examined guidelines and recommendations for authors in eleven selected peer-reviewed journals in the area of traffic safety; (ii) surveyed editors of these journals; and (iii) reviewed articles authored by researchers from a selected group of car manufacturers and published in these journals during 2011-2015. Guidelines and recommendations for authors in the included journals did not mention whether and under what circumstances company employees can be research participants, nor did publishers' general guidelines. However, three out of the four editors who responded to our survey believed that this issue of private company researchers using participants from the same company deserves to be explicitly addressed in their journal's guide for authors. The total number of regular articles and conference papers during 2011-2015 in the eleven journals reviewed was 6763; 95 (1.4%) listed at least one car manufacturer in the authors' affiliations; and out of these, nine included company employees as participants. In summary, company employees are seldom (0.13%) used as research participants in traffic safety research. Nevertheless, the use of company employees as research participants raises questions about bias in results as well as about incursions into the participants' autonomy. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Peer reviewe

Ethical deliberations about involuntary treatment: interviews with Swedish psychiatrists

Background: Involuntary treatment is a key issue in healthcare ethics. In this study, ethical issues relating to involuntary psychiatric treatment are investigated through interviews with Swedish psychiatrists. Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted with eight Swedish psychiatrists, focusing on their experiences of and views on compulsory treatment. In relation to this, issues about patient autonomy were also discussed. The interviews were analysed using a descriptive qualitative approach. Results: The answers focus on two main aspects of compulsory treatment. Firstly, deliberations about when and why it was justifiable to make a decision on involuntary treatment in a specific case. Here the cons and pros of ordering compulsory treatment were discussed, with particular emphasis on the consequences of providing treatment vs. refraining from ordering treatment. Secondly, a number of issues relating to background factors affecting decisions for or against involuntary treatment were also discussed. These included issues about the Swedish Mental Care Act, healthcare organisation and the care environment. Conclusions: Involuntary treatment was generally seen as an unwanted exception to standard care. The respondents’ judgments about involuntary treatment were typically in line with Swedish law on the subject. However, it was also argued that the law leaves room for individual judgments when making decisions about involuntary treatment. Much of the reasoning focused on the consequences of ordering involuntary treatment, where risk of harm to the therapeutic alliance was weighed against the assumed good consequences of ensuring that patients received needed treatment. Cases concerning suicidal patients and psychotic patients who did not realise their need for care were typically held as paradigmatic examples of justified involuntary care. However, there was an ambivalence regarding the issue of suicide as it was also argued that risk of suicide in itself might not be sufficient for justified involuntary care. It was moreover argued that organisational factors sometimes led to decisions about compulsory treatment that could have been avoided, given a more patient-oriented healthcare organisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12910-015-0029-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users