Search

Background: Recognising the importance of addressing ethics and research integrity (ERI) in Europe, in 2017, the All European Academies (ALLEA) published a revised and updated European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity (ECoC). Consistent application of the ECoC by researchers across Europe will require its widespread dissemination, as well as an innovative training programme and novel tools to enable researchers to truly uphold and internalise the principles and practices listed in the Code. Aim: VIRT²UE aims to develop a sustainable train-the-trainer blended learning programme enabling contextualised ERI teaching across Europe focusing on understanding and upholding the principles and practices of the ECoC. Vision: The VIRT²UE project recognises that researchers not only need to have knowledge of the ECoC, but also to be able to truly uphold and internalise the principles underpinning the code. They need to learn how to integrate them into their everyday practice and understand how to act in concrete situations. VIRT²UE addresses this challenge by providing ERI trainers and researchers with an innovative blended (i.e. combined online and off-line approaches) learning programme that draws on a toolbox of educational resources and incorporates an e-learning course (including a YouTube channel) and face-to-face sessions designed to foster moral virtues. ERI trainers and researchers from academia and industry will have open access to online teaching material. Moreover, ERI trainers will learn how to facilitate face-to-face sessions of researchers, which focus on learning how to apply the content of the teaching material to concrete situations in daily practice. Objectives: VIRT²UE's work packages (WP) will: conduct a conceptual mapping amongst stakeholders to identify and rank the virtues which are essential for good scientific practice and their relationship to the principles and practices of the ECoC (WP1); identify and consult ERI trainers and the wider scientific community to understand existing capacity and deficiencies in ERI educational resources (WP2); develop the face-to-face component of the train-the-trainer programme which provides trainers with tools to foster researchers' virtues and promote the ECoC and iteratively develop the programme based on evaluations (WP3); produce educational materials for online learning by researchers and trainers (WP4); implement and disseminate the train-the-trainer programme across Europe, ensuring the training of sufficient trainers for each country and build capacity and consistency by focusing on underdeveloped regions and unifying fragmented efforts (WP5); and develop the online training platform and user interface, which will be instrumental in evaluation of trainers' and researchers' needs and project sustainability (WP6). Impact: The VIRT²UE training programme will promote consistent application of the ECoC across Europe. The programme will affect behaviour on the individual level of trainers and researchers - simultaneously developing an understanding of the ECoC and other ERI issues, whilst also developing scientific virtues, enabling the application of the acquired knowledge to concrete situations and complex moral dilemmas. Through a dedicated embedding strategy, the programme will also have an impact on an institutional level. The train-the-trainer approach multiplies the impact of the programme by reaching current and future European ERI trainers and, subsequently, the researchers they train. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Functioning includingwork participation, is an emerging challenge in occupational health. The prevention of long term sickness absence (LTSA) through a strategy involving screening and structured early consultation (preventive strategy) was proven effective and can address participation issues. Implementation of this strategy has proven difficult. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the experiences of occupational physicians (OPs) delivering a structured early consultation to office workers, in order to enhance implementation of the strategy. METHODS: In this case study, a mixed method design was used. Interviews and surveys were conducted to obtain an in-depth picture of OPs experiences. RESULTS: Factors hindering implementation in relation to the OPs were difficulties in communicating the risk of future sick leave, prioritization of other tasks, maintaining a reactive approach due to work pressure, preference for prevention on the level of the work environment, privacy issues related to labeling workers to have mental or psychosocial issues, and the biomedical model being the mental model in use. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the preventive strategy seems to require a more profound focus on the biopsychosocial approach. Training of relevant skills is important to achieve a focus on prevention and fostering health over the lifespan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The text you are about to read is a dialogical text on dialogue and evaluation. It is a conversation between a group of scholars who have studied and published on the concept of dialogue and the value of dialogue for the practice of evaluation. The text is based on the field notes of a panel meeting held during a gathering of the European Evaluation Society to discuss this topic. It also contains an analysis of essays written in preparation for the panel in answer to the following carefully selected questions. What is your concept of dialogue? Why do you think dialogue is important for evaluation, especially for programme evaluation in the public sector and civil society? During an evaluation, what are the essential characteristics of a meaningful dialogue? Who participates? What do they talk about? What is the evaluator's role? What prior value commitments or facilitating conditions are necessary? What are desired outcomes? What are the most important cautions we should take when conducting a more dialogical evaluation and finally, how 'good' are the dialogues we conduct, and what in fact constitutes 'good' dialogue? [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Self-binding directives (SBDs) are psychiatric advance directives that include a clause in which mental health service users consent in advance to involuntary hospital admission and treatment under specified conditions. Medical ethicists and legal scholars identified various potential benefits of SBDs but have also raised ethical concerns. Until recently, little was known about the views of stakeholders on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs., Aims: This article aims to foster an international exchange on SBDs by comparing recent empirical findings on stakeholders' views on the opportunities and challenges of SBDs from Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom., Method: Comparisons between the empirical findings were drawn using a structured expert consensus process., Results: Findings converged on many points. Perceived opportunities of SBDs include promotion of autonomy, avoidance of personally defined harms, early intervention, reduction of admission duration, improvement of the therapeutic relationship, involvement of persons of trust, avoidance of involuntary hospital admission, addressing trauma, destigmatization of involuntary treatment, increase of professionals' confidence, and relief for proxy decision-makers. Perceived challenges include lack of awareness and knowledge, lack of support, undue influence, inaccessibility during crisis, lack of cross-agency coordination, problems of interpretation, difficulties in capacity assessment, restricted therapeutic flexibility, scarce resources, disappointment due to noncompliance, and outdated content. Stakeholders tended to focus on practical challenges and did not often raise fundamental ethical concerns., Conclusions: Stakeholders tend to see the implementation of SBDs as ethically desirable, provided that the associated challenges are addressed.

Fostering research integrity (RI) increasingly focuses on normative guidance and supportive measures within institutions. To be successful, the implementation of support should be informed by stakeholders' experiences of RI support. This study aims to explore experiences of RI support in Dutch, Spanish and Croatian universities. In total, 59 stakeholders (Netherlands n = 25, Spain n = 17, Croatia n = 17) participated in 16 focus groups in three European countries. Global themes on RI support experiences were identified by thematic analysis. Themes identified were: 'RI governance and institutional implementation', 'RI roles and structures', 'RI education and supervision', and 'Infrastructure, technology and tools supporting daily practice'. Experiences of support differed between countries in relation to: the efforts to translate norms into practice; the extent to which RI oversight was a responsibility of RE structures, or separate RI structures; and the availability of support close to research practice, such as training, responsible supervision, and adequate tools and infrastructure. The study reinforces the importance of a whole institutional approach to RI, embedded within local jurisdictions, rules, and practices. A whole institutional approach puts the emphasis of responsibility on institutions rather than individual researchers. When such an approach is lacking, some stakeholders look for intervention by authorities, such as funders, outside of the university., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds., Methods: The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach., Results: Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training & Expertise)., Conclusions: Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.

Background: Clinical ethics support, in particular Moral Case Deliberation, aims to support health care providers to manage ethically difficult situations. However, there is a lack of evaluation instruments regarding outcomes of clinical ethics support in general and regarding Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) in particular. There also is a lack of clarity and consensuses regarding which MCD outcomes are beneficial. In addition, MCD outcomes might be context-sensitive. Against this background, there is a need for a standardised but flexible outcome evaluation instrument. The aim of this study was to develop a multi-contextual evaluation instrument measuring health care providers' experiences and perceived importance of outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation., Methods: A multi-item instrument for assessing outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation (MCD) was constructed through an iterative process, founded on a literature review and modified through a multistep review by ethicists and health care providers. The instrument measures perceived importance of outcomes before and after MCD, as well as experienced outcomes during MCD and in daily work. A purposeful sample of 86 European participants contributed to a Delphi panel and content validity testing. The Delphi panel (n = 13), consisting of ethicists and ethics researchers, participated in three Delphi-rounds. Health care providers (n = 73) participated in the content validity testing through 'think-aloud' interviews and a method using Content Validity Index., Results: The development process resulted in the European Moral Case Deliberation Outcomes Instrument (Euro-MCD), which consists of two sections, one to be completed before a participant's first MCD and the other after completing multiple MCDs. The instrument contains a few open-ended questions and 26 specific items with a corresponding rating/response scale representing various MCD outcomes. The items were categorised into the following six domains: Enhanced emotional support, Enhanced collaboration, Improved moral reflexivity, Improved moral attitude, Improvement on organizational level and Concrete results., Conclusions: A tentative instrument has been developed that seems to cover main outcomes of Moral Case Deliberation. The next step will be to test the Euro-MCD in a field study.