Search

Research participants are often deceived for methodological reasons. However, assessing the ethical acceptability of an individual study that uses deception is not straightforward. The academic literature is scattered on the subject and several aspects of the acceptability assessment are only scarcely addressed, which parallels reports of inconsistent ethics review. Therefore, we aimed to investigate where normative guidance documents agree and disagree about this assessment. A PRISMA-Ethics-guided systematic review of normative guidance documents that discuss deception of research participants was conducted. Our search strategy resulted in 55 documents that were subsequently analyzed through abductive thematic analysis. While guidance documents mention little about specific risks and opportunities of deception, our analysis describes a rich picture of the thresholds for acceptability of the risks and benefits of deception and their integration, the comparison with the risk-benefit analysis of alternative non-deceptive methods, and the bodies of people who are positioned to do the review. Our review reveals an agreement on the general process of assessing the acceptability of studies that use deception, although significant variability remains in the details and several topics are largely or completely unaddressed in guidance documents. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The history of human-subject experimentation has shown the need for safeguards to protect participants from abuse. Balancing participant protection with adequate representation of the adult intellectual disability population in research presents an important challenge. Our study aimed to analyze guidance on the appropriate inclusion of adults with intellectual disability who are or are not able to consent to biomedical research participation. Terminology, consent and type of ethically acceptable research provisions relevant to adult participants with intellectual disability were comprehensively reviewed in a selection of 17 international and national ethical research guidelines and statements. Most guidelines and statements recommend that adult participants with intellectual disability who are unable to consent be included when it is not possible to conduct the same research with adults capable of independent decision-making, or when there is therapeutic benefit and only minimal risk. Instead of naming specific requirements, the Australian statement stands out by asserting the "individual right" to participate. Assent requirements for incapacitated adults are not explicitly mentioned in most documents reviewed. There appears to be room for further description of the importance of careful capacity assessments and solid assent requirements in ethical research guidance documentation to promote meaningful participation of adults with intellectual disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ethical safeguards such as debriefing are often recommended or required for research studies in which participants are deceived. However, existing guidance on these safeguards seems insufficiently coherent and precise, which may be associated with their suboptimal implementation in practice. This study aimed to contribute to a more coherent and precise framework of ethical safeguards in deceptive studies through semi-structured interviews with a diverse sample of 24 researchers who had significant experience with deception. Interviewees discussed which ethical safeguards they implemented and how, as well as their relation to the notion of truthfulness (i.e., the intentional communication of true information). Moreover, interviewees provided a variety of reasons for and against implementing these safeguards, as well as how these reasons varied with the particular context of a study. Overall, the current study contributes to a more coherent and precise understanding of ethical safeguards in deceptive research that could be useful for guiding researchers and ethics reviewers in their ethical decision-making, although certain imprecisions and incoherent aspects remain in need of further investigation and normative reflection.

The Concussion in Sport Group guidelines have successfully brought the attention of brain injuries to the global medical and sport research communities, and has significantly impacted brain injury-related practices and rules of international sport. Despite being the global repository of state-of-the-art science, diagnostic tools and guides to clinical practice, the ensuing consensus statements remain the object of ethical and sociocultural criticism. The purpose of this paper is to bring to bear a broad range of multidisciplinary challenges to the processes and products of sport-related concussion movement. We identify lacunae in scientific research and clinical guidance in relation to age, disability, gender and race. We also identify, through multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary analysis, a range of ethical problems resulting from conflicts of interest, processes of attributing expertise in sport-related concussion, unjustifiably narrow methodological control and insufficient athlete engagement in research and policy development. We argue that the sport and exercise medicine community need to augment the existing research and practice foci to understand these problems more holistically and, in turn, provide guidance and recommendations that help sport clinicians better care for brain-injured athletes., Competing Interests: Competing interests: MM: co-chair of the Concussion in Sport Group (CiSG); DM received payment for expert testimony (Rylands Solicitors company); WD is a member of the IPC Medical Commission., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)