439 research outputs found

    Beyond Chapter 4.7

    Get PDF
    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

    Operationalising a model framework for consumer and community participation in health and medical research

    Get PDF
    The Consumers' Health Forum of Australia and the National Health and Medical Research Council has recently developed a Model Framework for Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research in order to better align health and medical research with community need, and improve the impact of research. Model frameworks may have little impact on what goes on in practice unless relevant organisations actively make use of them. Philanthropic and government bodies have reported involving consumers in more meaningful or collaborative ways of late. This paper describes how a large charity organisation, which funds a significant proportion of Australian cancer research, operationalised the model framework using a unique approach demonstrating that it is both possible and reasonable for research to be considerate of public values

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Effects of oral and oropharyngeal cancer on speech intelligibility using acoustic analysis: Systematic review

    Get PDF
    Background: The development of automatic tools based on acoustic analysis allows to overcome the limitations of perceptual assessment for patients with head and neck cancer. The aim of this study is to provide a systematic review of literature describing the effects of oral and oropharyngeal cancer on speech intelligibility using acoustic analysis. Methods: Two databases (PubMed and Embase) were surveyed. The selection process, according to the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, led to a final set of 22 articles. Results: Nasalance is studied mainly in oropharyngeal patients. The vowels are mostly studied using formant analysis and vowel space area, the consonants by means of spectral moments with specific parameters according to their phonetic characteristic. Machine learning methods allow classifying “intelligible” or “unintelligible” speech for T3 or T4 tumors. Conclusions: The development of comprehensive models combining different acoustic measures would allow a better consideration of the functional impact of the speech disorder

    Dental amalgam and mercury in dentistry

    Get PDF
    The document attached has been archived with permission from the Australian Dental Association. An external link to the publisher’s copy is included.Mercury in dentistry has re-emerged as a contentious issue in public health, predominantly because so many people are inadvertently exposed to mercury in order to obtain the benefits of dental amalgam fillings, and the risks remain difficult to interpret. This commentary aims to examine the issues involved in public policy assessment of the continued use of dental amalgam in dentistry.AJ Spence

    A time series analysis of presentations to Queensland health facilities for alcohol-related conditions, following the increase in ‘alcopops’ tax

    Get PDF
    Objective: In response to concerns about the health consequences of high-risk drinking by young people, the Australian Government increased the tax on pre-mixed alcoholic beverages ('alcopops') favoured by this demographic. We measured changes in admissions for alcohol-related harm to health throughout Queensland, before and after the tax increase in April 2008. Methods: We used data from the Queensland Trauma Register, Hospitals Admitted Patients Data Collection, and the Emergency Department Information System to calculate alcohol-related admission rates per 100,000 people, for 15 - 29 year-olds. We analysed data over 3 years (April 2006 - April 2009), using interrupted time-series analyses. This covered 2 years before, and 1 year after, the tax increase. We investigated both mental and behavioural consequences (via F10 codes), and intentional/unintentional injuries (S and T codes). Results: We fitted an auto-regressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model, to test for any changes following the increased tax. There was no decrease in alcohol-related admissions in 15 - 29 year-olds. We found similar results for males and females, as well as definitions of alcohol-related harms that were narrow (F10 codes only) and broad (F10, S and T codes). Conclusions: The increased tax on 'alcopops' was not associated with any reduction in hospital admissions for alcohol-related harms in Queensland 15 - 29 year-olds

    Chapter 5: Assessing Risk of Bias as a Domain of Quality in Medical Test Studies

    Get PDF
    Assessing methodological quality is a necessary activity for any systematic review, including those evaluating the evidence for studies of medical test performance. Judging the overall quality of an individual study involves examining the size of the study, the direction and degree of findings, the relevance of the study, and the risk of bias in the form of systematic error, internal validity, and other study limitations. In this chapter of the Methods Guide for Medical Test Reviews, we focus on the evaluation of risk of bias in the form of systematic error in an individual study as a distinctly important component of quality in studies of medical test performance, specifically in the context of estimating test performance (sensitivity and specificity). We make the following recommendations to systematic reviewers: 1) When assessing study limitations that are relevant to the test under evaluation, reviewers should select validated criteria that examine the risk of systematic error, 2) categorizing the risk of bias for individual studies as “low,” “medium,” or “high” is a useful way to proceed, and 3) methods for determining an overall categorization for the study limitations should be established a priori and documented clearly
    corecore