Seventy six senior academics from 11 countries invite The BMJ’s editors to reconsider their policy of rejecting qualitative research on the grounds of low priority. They challenge the journal to develop a proactive, scholarly, and pluralist approach to research that aligns with its stated mission

BackgroundThe concept of vulnerability has held a central place in research ethics guidance since its introduction in the United States Belmont Report in 1979. It signals mindfulness for researchers and research ethics boards to the possibility that some participants may be at higher risk of harm or wrong. Despite its important intended purpose and widespread use, there is considerable disagreement in the scholarly literature about the meaning and delineation of vulnerability, stemming from a perceived lack of guidance within research ethics standards. The aim of this study was to assess the concept of vulnerability as it is employed in major national and international research ethics policies and guidelines.MethodsWe conducted an in-depth analysis of 11 (five national and six international) research ethics policies and guidelines, exploring their discussions of the definition, application, normative justification and implications of vulnerability.ResultsFew policies and guidelines explicitly defined vulnerability, instead relying on implicit assumptions and the delineation of vulnerable groups and sources of vulnerability. On the whole, we found considerable richness in the content on vulnerability across policies, but note that this relies heavily on the structure imposed on the data through our analysis.ConclusionsOur results underscore a need for policymakers to revisit the guidance on vulnerability in research ethics, and we propose that a process of stakeholder engagement would well-support this effort.

No abstract

IntroductionImproving the oral health of refugees and asylum seekers is a global priority, yet little is known about the overall burden of oral diseases and their causes for this population.ObjectiveTo synthesize available evidence on the oral health of, and access to oral health care by this population.MethodsUsing a scoping review methodology, we retrieved 3321 records from eight databases and grey literature; 44 publications met the following inclusion criteria: empirical research focused on refugees and/or asylum seekers’ oral health, published between 1990 and 2014 in English, French, Italian, Portuguese, or Spanish. Analysis included descriptive and thematic analysis, as well as critical appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) criteria for quantitative and qualitative studies.ResultsThe majority of publications (86 %) were from industrialized countries, while the majority of refugees are resettled in developing countries. The most common study designs were quantitative (75 %). Overall, the majority of studies (76 %) were of good quality. Studies mainly explored oral health status, knowledge and practices; a minority (9 %) included interventions. The refugee populations in the studies showed higher burden of oral diseases and limited access to oral health care compared to even the least privileged populations in the host countries. Minimal strategies to improve oral health have been implemented; however, some have impressive outcomes.ConclusionsOral health disparities for this population remain a major concern. More research is needed on refugees in developing countries, refugees residing in refugee camps, and interventions to bridge oral health disparities. This review has utility for policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other stakeholders working to improve the oral health of this population.

Efforts to support families and to commemorate deceased children are appreciated by bereaved parents. Staff members' absences at commemorative events and a lack of supportive acts are noticed and regretted by families. Staff members and program administrators should attempt to arrange workloads to ensure meaningful contact between staff members and parents during the bereavement period.