Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines
Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulation...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Autor*in: |
Mezinska, Signe [verfasserIn] |
---|
Format: |
E-Artikel |
---|---|
Sprache: |
Englisch |
Erschienen: |
2016 |
---|
Schlagwörter: |
---|
Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s). 2016 |
---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: BMC medical ethics - London : BioMed Central, 2000, 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. |
---|---|
Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:17 ; year:2016 ; number:1 ; day:21 ; month:10 |
Links: |
---|
DOI / URN: |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |
---|
Katalog-ID: |
SPR028197569 |
---|
LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
---|---|---|---|
001 | SPR028197569 | ||
003 | DE-627 | ||
005 | 20230519140708.0 | ||
007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
008 | 201007s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
024 | 7 | |a 10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |2 doi | |
035 | |a (DE-627)SPR028197569 | ||
035 | |a (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e | ||
040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
041 | |a eng | ||
100 | 1 | |a Mezinska, Signe |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
245 | 1 | 0 | |a Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
264 | 1 | |c 2016 | |
336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
500 | |a © The Author(s). 2016 | ||
520 | |a Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. | ||
650 | 4 | |a Disaster |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Disaster research |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Ethics guidelines |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Research ethics |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Research ethics committee |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
650 | 4 | |a Vulnerability |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
700 | 1 | |a Kakuk, Péter |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Mijaljica, Goran |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a Waligóra, Marcin |4 aut | |
700 | 1 | |a O’Mathúna, Dónal P. |4 aut | |
773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t BMC medical ethics |d London : BioMed Central, 2000 |g 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. |w (DE-627)326645403 |w (DE-600)2041552-7 |x 1472-6939 |7 nnns |
773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:17 |g year:2016 |g number:1 |g day:21 |g month:10 |
856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |z kostenfrei |3 Volltext |
912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
912 | |a SSG-OLC-PHA | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_11 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_20 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_22 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_23 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_24 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_39 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_40 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_60 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_62 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_63 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_65 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_69 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_73 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_74 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_95 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_105 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_110 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_151 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_161 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_170 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_206 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_213 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_230 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_285 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_293 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_602 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2003 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_2014 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4037 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4112 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4125 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4126 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4249 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4305 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4306 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4307 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4313 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4322 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4323 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4324 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4325 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4338 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4367 | ||
912 | |a GBV_ILN_4700 | ||
951 | |a AR | ||
952 | |d 17 |j 2016 |e 1 |b 21 |c 10 |
author_variant |
s m sm p k pk g m gm m w mw d p o dp dpo |
---|---|
matchkey_str |
article:14726939:2016----::eerhniatretnssseaiqaiaieeiw |
hierarchy_sort_str |
2016 |
publishDate |
2016 |
allfields |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 doi (DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mezinska, Signe verfasserin aut Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kakuk, Péter aut Mijaljica, Goran aut Waligóra, Marcin aut O’Mathúna, Dónal P. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 21 10 |
spelling |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 doi (DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mezinska, Signe verfasserin aut Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kakuk, Péter aut Mijaljica, Goran aut Waligóra, Marcin aut O’Mathúna, Dónal P. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 21 10 |
allfields_unstemmed |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 doi (DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mezinska, Signe verfasserin aut Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kakuk, Péter aut Mijaljica, Goran aut Waligóra, Marcin aut O’Mathúna, Dónal P. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 21 10 |
allfieldsGer |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 doi (DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mezinska, Signe verfasserin aut Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kakuk, Péter aut Mijaljica, Goran aut Waligóra, Marcin aut O’Mathúna, Dónal P. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 21 10 |
allfieldsSound |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 doi (DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Mezinska, Signe verfasserin aut Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines 2016 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier © The Author(s). 2016 Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 Kakuk, Péter aut Mijaljica, Goran aut Waligóra, Marcin aut O’Mathúna, Dónal P. aut Enthalten in BMC medical ethics London : BioMed Central, 2000 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. (DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 1472-6939 nnns volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 kostenfrei Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 17 2016 1 21 10 |
language |
English |
source |
Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 |
sourceStr |
Enthalten in BMC medical ethics 17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt. volume:17 year:2016 number:1 day:21 month:10 |
format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
institution |
findex.gbv.de |
topic_facet |
Disaster Disaster research Ethics guidelines Research ethics Research ethics committee Vulnerability |
isfreeaccess_bool |
true |
container_title |
BMC medical ethics |
authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Mezinska, Signe @@aut@@ Kakuk, Péter @@aut@@ Mijaljica, Goran @@aut@@ Waligóra, Marcin @@aut@@ O’Mathúna, Dónal P. @@aut@@ |
publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-10-21T00:00:00Z |
hierarchy_top_id |
326645403 |
id |
SPR028197569 |
language_de |
englisch |
fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR028197569</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519140708.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR028197569</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mezinska, Signe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Disaster</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Disaster research</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ethics guidelines</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics committee</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Vulnerability</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kakuk, Péter</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mijaljica, Goran</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waligóra, Marcin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O’Mathúna, Dónal P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:21</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">21</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
author |
Mezinska, Signe |
spellingShingle |
Mezinska, Signe misc Disaster misc Disaster research misc Ethics guidelines misc Research ethics misc Research ethics committee misc Vulnerability Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
authorStr |
Mezinska, Signe |
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)326645403 |
format |
electronic Article |
delete_txt_mv |
keep |
author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut |
collection |
springer |
remote_str |
true |
illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
issn |
1472-6939 |
topic_title |
Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines Disaster (dpeaa)DE-He213 Disaster research (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ethics guidelines (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics (dpeaa)DE-He213 Research ethics committee (dpeaa)DE-He213 Vulnerability (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
topic |
misc Disaster misc Disaster research misc Ethics guidelines misc Research ethics misc Research ethics committee misc Vulnerability |
topic_unstemmed |
misc Disaster misc Disaster research misc Ethics guidelines misc Research ethics misc Research ethics committee misc Vulnerability |
topic_browse |
misc Disaster misc Disaster research misc Ethics guidelines misc Research ethics misc Research ethics committee misc Vulnerability |
format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
hierarchy_parent_title |
BMC medical ethics |
hierarchy_parent_id |
326645403 |
hierarchy_top_title |
BMC medical ethics |
isfreeaccess_txt |
true |
familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)326645403 (DE-600)2041552-7 |
title |
Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR028197569 (SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e |
title_full |
Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
author_sort |
Mezinska, Signe |
journal |
BMC medical ethics |
journalStr |
BMC medical ethics |
lang_code |
eng |
isOA_bool |
true |
recordtype |
marc |
publishDateSort |
2016 |
contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
author_browse |
Mezinska, Signe Kakuk, Péter Mijaljica, Goran Waligóra, Marcin O’Mathúna, Dónal P. |
container_volume |
17 |
format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
author-letter |
Mezinska, Signe |
doi_str_mv |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |
title_sort |
research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
title_auth |
Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
abstract |
Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. © The Author(s). 2016 |
abstractGer |
Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. © The Author(s). 2016 |
abstract_unstemmed |
Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines. © The Author(s). 2016 |
collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER SSG-OLC-PHA GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 |
container_issue |
1 |
title_short |
Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines |
url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |
remote_bool |
true |
author2 |
Kakuk, Péter Mijaljica, Goran Waligóra, Marcin O’Mathúna, Dónal P. |
author2Str |
Kakuk, Péter Mijaljica, Goran Waligóra, Marcin O’Mathúna, Dónal P. |
ppnlink |
326645403 |
mediatype_str_mv |
c |
isOA_txt |
true |
hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
doi_str |
10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7 |
up_date |
2024-07-03T17:54:10.554Z |
_version_ |
1803581391432056832 |
fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR028197569</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230519140708.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201007s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR028197569</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s12910-016-0148-7-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mezinska, Signe</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s). 2016</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Background Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM). Methods We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines. Results Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified. Conclusions Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Disaster</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Disaster research</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ethics guidelines</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Research ethics committee</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Vulnerability</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kakuk, Péter</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Mijaljica, Goran</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Waligóra, Marcin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">O’Mathúna, Dónal P.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">BMC medical ethics</subfield><subfield code="d">London : BioMed Central, 2000</subfield><subfield code="g">17(2016), 1 vom: 21. Okt.</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)326645403</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2041552-7</subfield><subfield code="x">1472-6939</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:17</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:21</subfield><subfield code="g">month:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-PHA</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">17</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">21</subfield><subfield code="c">10</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
score |
7.4015884 |