Beyond Chapter 4.7

Chapter 4.7 of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research refers specifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples. It lays out the points at which researchers working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders must consider their approach, and the engagement with individuals, communities or groups who are involved in or affected by their research. History, of Australia and of research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, has informed this approach. The response to that history has been a rational, institutionalised, systematic demand for a different perception of what should direct research and research processes to ensure engagement with and service to the community with whom the researchers wish to do the work. This paper considers whether these principles could inform the approach to other research work.not applicabl

EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2013. Scientific Opinion on the substantiation of a health claim related to increasing maternal folate status by supplemental folate intake and reduced risk of neural tube defects pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006

Following an application from Rank Nutrition Ltd, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of the United Kingdom, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to increasing maternal folate status by supplemental folate intake and reduced risk of neural tube defects. The Panel considers that the food constituent, supplemental folate, which is the subject of the claim, is sufficiently characterised. Increasing maternal folate status by supplemental folate intake is a beneficial physiological effect in the context of reducing the risk of neural tube defects. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that the association between low maternal folate intakes and an increased risk of neural tube defects is well established, and that a recent systematic review showed an effect of maternal folic acid intakes on the risk of neural tube defects. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between increasing maternal folate status by supplemental folate intake and a reduced risk of neural tube defects

Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?

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 with 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 prior to publication: (i) that HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (ii) that the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated; (iii) that obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (iv) that 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 prior to publishing in the health promotion context. So what? Journals such as the HPJA 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. Keywords Publication ethics, research, health promotion, ethics approva

The longitudinal pattern of response when morphine is used to treat chronic refractory dyspnea

Background: While evidence supports using sustained release morphine for chronic refractory breathlessness, little is known about the longitudinal pattern of breathlessness intensity as people achieve symptomatic benefit. The aim of this study is to describe this pattern. Methods: This secondary analysis used breathlessness intensity scores (100mm visual analogue scale (VAS)) from a prospective, dose increment study of once daily (morning) sustained release morphine for chronic refractory breathlessness. Participants who achieved < 10% improvement over their own baseline at one week (10 mg) were titrated to 20mg and if no response, another week later to 30mg for one week. Time was standardized at the first day of the week in which participants responded generating twice daily data one week either side of symptomatic benefit. Analysis used random effect mixed modeling. Results: Of the 83 participants, 17/52 responders required > 10 mg: 13 participants (20 mg) and 4 (30 mg), contributing 634 VAS observations. In the week leading to a response, average VAS scores worsened by 0.3mm/ day ( p = 0.16); the average improvement in the first 24 hours of response was 10.9mm (7.0 to 14.7; p < 0.0001), with continued improvement of 2.2 mm/day ( p < 0.001) for six more days. Conclusion: When treating chronic refractory breathlessness with once daily sustained release morphine, titrate to effect, since inadequate dose may generate no response; and following an initial response, further dose increases should not occur for at least one week. Whether further benefit would be derived beyond day six on the dose to which people respond, and what net effect a further dose increase would have are questions yet to be answered

Policy and practice impacts of applied research: a case study analysis of the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme 2000-2006

BackgroundIntervention research provides important information regarding feasible and effective interventions for health policy makers, but few empirical studies have explored the mechanisms by which these studies influence policy and practice. This study provides an exploratory case series analysis of the policy, practice and other related impacts of the 15 research projects funded through the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme during the period 2000 to 2006, and explored the factors mediating impacts.MethodsData collection included semi-structured interviews with the chief investigators (n = 17) and end-users (n = 29) of each of the 15 projects to explore if, how and under what circumstances the findings had been used, as well as bibliometric analysis and verification using documentary evidence. Data analysis involved thematic coding of interview data and triangulation with other data sources to produce case summaries of impacts for each project. Case summaries were then individually assessed against four impact criteria and discussed at a verification panel meeting where final group assessments of the impact of research projects were made and key influences of research impact identified.ResultsFunded projects had variable impacts on policy and practice. Project findings were used for agenda setting (raising awareness of issues), identifying areas and target groups for interventions, informing new policies, and supporting and justifying existing policies and programs across sectors. Reported factors influencing the use of findings were: i) nature of the intervention; ii) leadership and champions; iii) research quality; iv) effective partnerships; v) dissemination strategies used; and, vi) contextual factors.ConclusionsThe case series analysis provides new insights into how and under what circumstances intervention research is used to influence real world policy and practice. The findings highlight that intervention research projects can achieve the greatest policy and practice impacts if they address proximal needs of the policy context by engaging end-users from the inception of projects and utilizing existing policy networks and structures, and using a range of strategies to disseminate findings that go beond traditional peer review publications.<br /