NR 505 Week 6: Discussion
How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
Learning about the history of research regarding the Nazi’s and the Tuskegee study has impacted my views on biomedical research. Biomedical research is an important aspect of healthcare hence it is the way we obtain information to prevent and treat illnesses; “access to new findings helps other scientists adjust their hypotheses and open new lines of inquiry, thereby supporting and accelerating further discovery and innovation” (Bibbins-Domingo et al., 2023). The Tuskegee study was sad because they continued to test the subjects without treatment when treatment was available. I am grateful that we learned from that unfortunate event and now prioritizes ethics. It is imperative that investigators respect the rights of the patients by obtaining thorough consent and ensuring that patients understand the ins and outs of the study along with expectations. It is also important that safety for all participants remains a high priority. Investigators have a responsibility to do no harm. Adequate studies should be acceptable, valid, reliable, and reproducible. In case of an adverse event or unexpected outcome, investigators must notify the participants, proper personnel, and the Institutional Review Board (IRB).
In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?
As I reviewed several studies regarding my PICOT, today’s researchers protect the rights of human subjects. Certainly, as with any practice there will be people who violate rules and regulations but from what I have read policies are being followed. All the studies I reviewed thoroughly represented how they obtained consent. The methods were clearly noted, risk factors were assessed, permission was obtained from the Institutional Review Board, and all the results were noted.
References
Bibbins-Domingo, K., Shields, B., Ayanian, J. Z., Bonow, R. O., Bressler, N. M., Christakis, D. A., Disis, M. L., Josephson, S. A., Kibbe, M. R., Öngür, D., Piccirillo, J. F., Redberg, R. F., Rivara, F. P., Shinkai, K., & Easley, T. J. (2023). Public access to scientific research findings and principles of biomedical research—a new policy for the jama network. JAMA Internal Medicine, 183(2), 95. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.6493Links to an external site.
How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
After reading this week’s textbook assignment, Ethics in Research, I am astonished at how frequently research misconduct occurred before the 21st century. Learning about the multitudes of ethical code violations by various researchers in history is both shocking and depressing. Although I was already aware of the atrocities performed by the Nazis during World War II, I had not realized there were so many other research studies completed with such immorality and carelessness for human life. For example, the Willowbrook study where researchers intentionally infected children with hepatitis A is, for lack of a better word, evil (Gray et al., 2017). Even with the Nuremberg Code established several years before the study, the researchers still engaged in horrible acts to children at the cost of their health (Gray et al., 2017). My view on biomedical research after this week’s readings has not changed, but I have become more informed about the rigorous, necessary process researchers must go through to perform research studies. For example, I am sure many of us are familiar with the process of informed consent for procedures or surgeries, however, it is just as important for study participants to be aware of the potential benefits and risks associated with participating in a research study, as well as the opportunity to leave at any point. Also, acquiring institutional review board (IRB) approval for a research study sounds like a long task, but I understand now why it is so necessary to have such a board that every research study must get approval for or be granted exemption from.
In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?
For the ten research articles I reviewed for my PICOT question, I feel that all of the researchers adequately protected their study participants’ rights. My PICOT question studied the effect of NP-provided diabetic education and its impact on adult diabetic patient outcomes. My PICOT question involved only adults, which eliminated the extra precautionary measures required for involving minors in research studies (i.e. acquiring assent from the child and informed consent from the parent) (Gray et al., 2017). Four out of the ten articles I chose for my research paper explicitly stated that they de-identified the participants, or the participants were given fake names/assigned a numerical value as their identity. For example, one of the qualitative articles included in my research summary discussed diabetic African American males’ dietary habits using focus groups. Lee et al. (2019) stated that all participants were assigned fake names so that they all remained anonymous to one another. I believe that in doing this, the researchers increased the participant’s truthfulness in knowing that their name was not associated with what they were expressing. As another example, Honick (2020) assigned each participant a number ranging from 1-88 to maintain the participants’ anonymity. However, none of the research articles I chose for my PICOT question involved any treatments that if withheld, would cause a patient to be harmed. In fact, most of the articles stated that they were exempt from the IRB.
References
Gray, J., Grove, S. K., Sutherland, S., & Burns, N. (2017). Burns and Grove’s the practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (8th ed.). Elsevier.
Honick, K. (2020). Does nutrition counseling affect glycosylated hemoglobin and estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with diabetes and stage 3 chronic kidney disease? The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 16(9), 695-698. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2020.05.010
Lee, L. T., Jung, S. E., Bowen, P. G., Clay, O. J., Locher, J. L., & Cherrington, A. L. (2019). Understanding the dietary habits of black men with diabetes. The Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 15(5), 365–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nurpra.2018.12.023
Purpose
Respond to the following prompts:
How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?
Due Date
A 5% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0 for any portion of the discussion not posted by that time).
NOTE: To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday.
A zero is the lowest score that a student can be assigned.
Faculty may submit any collaborative discussion posting to Turnitin in order to verify originality.
Total Points Possible: 50
Preparing the Assignment
Application of Course Knowledge: The student’s initial post contributes unique perspectives or insights gleaned from personal experience or examples from the healthcare field. The student must accurately and fully discuss the topic for the week in addition to providing personal or professional examples. The student must completely answer the entire initial question. Initial post due by Wednesday at 11:59pm MT. You must include two resources in your initial post: one from your lesson or weekly reading and one from an outside scholarly source.
Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
Peer Response: The student responds substantively to at least one topic-related post by a student peer. A substantive post adds content or insights or asks a question that will add to the learning experience and/or generate discussion.
A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the other student’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The peer response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
The peer response must occur before Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
The peer response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
Faculty Response: The student responds substantively to at least one question by course faculty. The faculty question may be directed to the student, to another student, or to the entire class.
A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the faculty’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The faculty response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
Responses to the faculty member must occur by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
This response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
Integration of Evidence: The student post provides support from a minimum of one scholarly in-text citation with a matching reference AND assigned readings OR online lessons, per discussion topic per week. Two resources total and to count must be an in-text citation.
What is a scholarly resource? A scholarly resource is one that comes from a professional, peer-reviewed publication (e.g., journals and government reports such as those from the FDA or CDC).
Contains references for sources cited
Written by a professional or scholar in the field and indicates credentials of the author(s)
Is no more than 5 years old for clinical or research article
What is not considered a scholarly resource?
Newspaper articles and layperson literature (e.g., Readers Digest, Healthy Life Magazine, Food, and Fitness)
Information from Wikipedia or any wiki
Textbooks
Website homepages
The weekly lesson
Articles in healthcare and nursing-oriented trade magazines, such as Nursing Made Incredibly Easy and RNMagazine (Source: What is a scholarly article.docx; Created 06/09 CK/CL Revised: 02/17/11, 09/02/11 nlh/clm)
Can the lesson for the week be used as a scholarly source?
Information from the weekly lesson can be cited in a posting; however, it is not to be the sole source used in the post.
Are resources provided from CU acceptable sources (e.g., the readings for the week)?
Not as a sole source within the post. The textbook and/or assigned (required) articles for the week can be used, but another outside source must be cited for full credit. Textbooks are not considered scholarly sources for the purpose of discussions.
Are websites acceptable as scholarly resources for discussions?
Yes, if they are documents or data cited from credible websites. Credible websites usually end in .gov or .edu; however, some .org sites that belong to professional associations (e.g., American Heart Association, National League for Nursing, American Diabetes Association) are also considered credible websites. Websites ending with .com are not to be used as scholarly resources
Professionalism in Communication: The post presents information in logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, and is clearly relevant to the discussion topic. Grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate.
Wednesday Participation Requirement: The student provides a substantive response to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course faculty (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.
Total Participation Requirement: The student provides at least three substantive posts (one to the initial question or topic, one to a student peer, and one to a faculty question) on two different days during the week.
Discussion Rubric
CategoryPointsDescriptionApplication of Course Knowledge15Answers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week.Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and Faculty10Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, adding depth to the conversationIntegration of Evidence15Assigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is:
1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 yearsTotal content points = 40 pointsGrammar and Communication5Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized mannerReference Citation5References have complete information as required by APA
In-text citations included for all references AND references included for all in-text citationTotal format points = 10 pointsDiscussion total points = 50 points