RESUMEN

Research Funding Organizations (RFOs) play an important role in promoting research integrity (RI). Not only do they allocate resources to research institutions and researchers, but they also set and monitor research standards in their funded projects. In spite of their crucial role, there is a paucity of guidance on how RFOs can promote research integrity. As part of the EU-Funded SOPs4RI project, we aimed to address this gap by co-creating guidelines to help RFOs promote RI, engaging a diverse group of stakeholders. Based on a Delphi survey, reviews of evidence and stakeholder interviews, three guideline topics were identified: 1) the selection and evaluation of proposals; 2) monitoring of funded projects; and 3) prevention of unjustified interference. Four sets of co-creation workshops were conducted for each guideline topic, and the input revised and finalized. Understanding these debates could help RFOs from diverse cultural and organizational backgrounds who are developing their own RI guidelines. Therefore, in this paper, we summarize the key results and emphasize the final recommendations. Further, we provide the main points of discussion that occurred during the workshops and explain how they were addressed or resolved in the final guidelines and how they can help in future endeavors to improve funders' practices to foster RI.

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Adolescence is a period of growing independence and maturity, within the period of legal minority. As parents or guardians are socially and legally responsible for adolescents' medical decisions, shared decision-making in adolescent healthcare could be ethically challenging. This review aims to identify and map the ethical tensions in shared decision-making in adolescent healthcare. METHODS: We systematically searched the literature following the PRISMA guidelines to identify relevant articles, which were analyzed using the review of reasons methodology Strech and Sofaer (J Med Ethics 38(2):121-6, 2012). RESULTS: We included 38 articles which involved adolescents, healthcare professionals and parents as being the main stakeholders. Shared decision-making was influenced not only by individual stakeholders' characteristics, but by tensions between stakeholder dyads. Most studies supported the involvement of the adolescent in decision-making, depending on their life experience, decision-making capacity and clinical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision-making in adolescent health is receiving increasing attention. However, questions remain on what this concept entails, the roles and involvement of stakeholders and its practical implementation. WHAT IS KNOWN: • Although adolescents wish to be involved in health decisions, shared decision-making in adolescents is underexplored • Adolescent shared decision-making is different from pediatric and adult shared decision-making, and is ethically complex due to the adolescent's growing autonomy What is new: • Adolescent SDM involves three-way interactions between the adolescent, healthcare professional and parents • In adolescent shared decision-making, involving or excluding a stakeholder and sharing or withholding information are ethically value-laden steps • Research is needed to further understand the roles of adolescents' personal value systems, extended or reconstituted families and decision aids in shared decision-making.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: It has been widely recognized that ethics is central to the practice of medicine. Since physicians' identities are heavily influenced by their basic medical training, education in ethics during this period would facilitate their professional development. To enable this, some global and national organizations have published guidelines detailing the aspects of ethics that need to be taught to medical student. However, it is not known how many such guidelines exist and to what extent they concur or differ. AIM: This study aims to identify and examine the content of existing national or international guidelines on the inclusion of ethics in basic medical education, in the English language. By doing so, it hopes to explore and highlight the similarities and differences regarding their pedagogical goals and their prescribed content, thereby contributing to a more holistic understanding on the state of medical ethics education. METHODS: Data collection was performed through systematic searches on Google and on scientific databases. The guidelines that fulfilled the inclusion criteria were thematically analyzed using the method proposed by Braun and Clarke (2006). The resulting themes and sub-themes were grouped and characterized. RESULTS: Thirteen guidelines (ten national and three international) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Among these, two major approaches can be discerned: value-based and norm-based. Value-based guidelines tend to be more globally applicable, because they endorse more abstract and universal principles. Norm-based guidelines, on the other hand, are more context-specific and have a practical focus. Understanding this distinction could facilitate discussions on different perspectives in ethics education.

Asunto(s)