MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2048564158 · doi:10.1176/pn.42.21.0001a

Local Collaboration Key to Success of Health Research in Poor Countries

2007· article· en· W2048564158 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jun Yan

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueGlobal Health and Surgery
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDeveloping countryPublic relationsGlobal healthPublic healthPolitical scienceBioethicsResearch ethicsInternational healthEconomic growthMedicineHealth policyLawNursing

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article International NewsFull AccessLocal Collaboration Key to Success of Health Research in Poor CountriesJun YanJun YanPublished Online:2 Nov 2007https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.42.21.0001aA summary of major ethical, social, and cultural issues in conducting scientific research and promoting technologies in developing countries provides a framework to help guide large-scale global research and health initiatives, especially those conducted in developing countries.The Ethical, Social, and Cultural (ESC) program, a component of Grand Challenges in Global Health (GCGH), a large, nonprofit, international project aimed at "solving critical health problems in the developing world," highlights 13 major issues that can arise in conducting health research and public health initiatives in developing countries. The program, based at the University of Toronto in Canada, has gathered a group of international bioethics experts and researchers to advise and assist in GCGH's efforts throughout the world. Four articles on the ESC program, including a summary of issues, are published in the September PLoS Medicine, a peer-reviewed, open-access journal published by the nonprofit organization Public Library of Science.As scientific research becomes increasingly global and more clinical trials are outsourced to underdeveloped countries, ethical concerns for the protection of human rights have grown. Even well-meaning philanthropic aid programs conducted by wealthy nations can result in suspicion, resentment, and negative outcomes if the administrators are ignorant of local cultures and geopolitical issues, the ESC program advisors pointed out.The lack of research oversight by local governments, varying standards of ethical conduct, and economic disadvantages may place people at risk for exploitation and harm, the report noted. The ethical problems and controversies in AIDS research in Africa, for example, have drawn criticism that researchers and sponsors treated subjects in poor African countries using ethical and medical standards lower than those that would be expected in the United States or other affluent countries.The issues that are cited by ESC advisors range from the need to engage the local community to women's social status in specific places, and obligations/benefit sharing once a clinical trial is completed (see Original article: Research Issues That Are Critical in Developing Countries). The ESC experts maintain that researchers should maximally communicate and collaborate with the local community, as well as with public, government, and nongovernmental organizations. Ignorance about local cultures and preferences could lead to failure, such as the rejection of white antimalaria bed nets in places where white is a culturally sensitive color.The concerns were compiled on the basis of interviews and group discussions with research investigators and program officers within GCGH and surveys of experts from academia, governments, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector in developing countries. This is the first analysis of ethical, social, and cultural issues related to large-scale research and public health initiatives that specifically addresses the developing world, according to the authors."It is important to distinguish between issues unique to international research and issues that are relevant to research in all settings, including studies done in developed countries," Paul Appelbaum, M.D., chair of APA's Council on Psychiatry and Law, told Psychiatric News. Appelbaum is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Psychiatry and director of Medicine and Law in the Division of Psychiatry, Law, and Ethics in the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University; he has written extensively on bioethics.Collaboration with a local community, for example, is essential to any research setting. One issue raised by the ESC program "particularly salient to the underdeveloped world is whether research participants and the hosting community will benefit from the research outcomes and results. The products of many research studies are so expensive that there is little hope the [host] countries will have wide access to them. It is a major issue in international research and not easy to resolve," Appelbaum said.An important concern not covered by the list, he noted, is the complex issue of informed consent in rural and poor regions. "One difficulty is how different cultures understand the concept of consent. The idea of choice may be incomprehensible in some cultures where authority carries great weight with the population. Researchers and physicians may represent an authority figure, and people may find it difficult or feel powerless to refuse participation in a study."He explained that some potential research subjects may not be in a position to make entirely voluntary choices, especially women in places where they need the approval of male figures such as fathers and husbands to participate in a study. There may also be situations in which a male figure can compel a woman to participate in a study against her will. Language barriers and a profound lack of understanding about science in underdeveloped regions can also hinder people's ability to make truly informed decisions.The GCGH is supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Foundation for the National Institutes of Health, and Wellcome Trust. The goal of the initiative is to "achieve scientific breakthroughs against diseases that kill millions of people each year in the world's poorest countries." The projects focus on developing new and better vaccines, preventing insect-transmitted diseases, discovering solutions to drug resistance, and more accurately diagnosing and tracking diseases in poor countries."Grand Challenges in Global Health: Ethical, Social, and Cultural Issues Based on Key Informant Perspectives" is posted at .▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,058
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,087
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,146
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,490

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0580,087
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0040,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0140,010
Communication savante0,0220,013
Science ouverte0,0020,040
Intégrité de la recherche0,0080,010
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1460,037

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,430
Écart entre enseignants0,378 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric NewsMême sujetGlobal Health and SurgeryTravaux en français237 207