Search

This paper examines the institutional mechanisms supporting the ethical oversight of human participant research conducted by the United Nations (UN). The UN has served an instrumental role in shaping international standards on research ethics, which invariably require ethical oversight of all research studies with human participants. The authors' experiences of conducting research collaboratively with UN agencies, in contrast, have led to concern that the UN frequently sponsors, or participates in, studies with human participants that have not received appropriate ethical oversight. It is argued that the institutional mechanisms in place to prevent research with human participants from being undertaken by the UN without ethical oversight do not, at present, extend substantively beyond the provision of guidelines and online training offered by a minority of UN bodies. The WHO and UNICEF are identified as notable exceptions, having implemented various measures to prevent health research with human participants from being undertaken without ethical oversight. Yet, it is highlighted that the WHO and UNICEF are not the only UN bodies that undertake health research with human participants and there are countless actors under the umbrella of the UN system that are regularly involved in non-health research with human participants. Arguments for the pursuit of the highest standard of ethical oversight by UN bodies are presented. Moving forward, the paper asks the question: is it time for the UN to set the standards for the oversight of ethical oversight?, Competing Interests: Competing interests: RJT and BC have previously conducted paid and unpaid research for United Nations agencies., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Is there a better way to train and prepare our health care personnel to function in a chemical biological environment while continuing to provide for patient care in a variety of healthcare settings? The purpose of this pilot work was to compare the effectiveness and user satisfaction of the Cath-Sim Intravenous Training System to the traditional IV arm model for teaching and achieving competence at IV insertion while in Mission-Oriented Protective Posture level 4 for Army medical personnel. Grounded in adult psychomotor learning principles and in an established evaluation model, participants were tested on both the traditional IV arm and Cath-Sim models and then allowed to practice on each model while at Mission-Oriented Protective Posture level 4. One week later, participants were again tested on both models. Outcome measures included (1) a computer-generated score sheet measuring time to success and criterion success/nonsuccess on the Cath-Sim; (2) time and success rating for IV insertion on the IV arm model; and (3) satisfaction evaluations completed by the participants. There were conflicting evaluation scores for recommending one model over the other. Participants felt that there was some benefit to each model depending on user, setting, and purpose.