Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

Francis-Auton, Emilie; Warren, Chris; Braithwaite, Jeffrey; Rapport, Frances

doi:10.1186/s13063-019-3968-1

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Research participants and patients need more than solely technical information when providing informed consent and differ in their information needs and preferences. Hence, sufficient time to ask questions should be provided (Lane et al 2011, Duarte et al 2015, Maki-Torkko et al 2015, Klein and Ojemann 2016, Rosenfeld and Wong 2017, Hendriks et al 2019, Francis-Auton et al 2020.…”

Section: Clinical Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Xia and Ren 2013, Glannon 2016,Klein 2016, Francis-Auton et al 2020, Hansson 2020). Furthermore, some authors are worried that users of neuroprostheses may experience changes in personality(Schermer 2009, Laryionava and Gross 2011, Lane et al 2012, Jebari and Hansson 2013, Mikołajewski and Mikołajewski 2013, Goering and Yuste 2016, Moritz et al 2016, Mudgal et al 2020.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses—a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. The aim of this review was to systematically identify the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses. Approach. A systematic search was performed in both PubMed and Embase using a search string that combined synonyms for visual neuroprostheses, brain–computer interfaces (BCIs), cochlear implants (CIs), and ethics. We chose to include literature on BCIs and CIs, because of their ethically relavant similarities and functional parallels with visual neuroprostheses. Main results. We included 84 articles in total. Six focused specifically on visual prostheses. The other articles focused more broadly on neurotechnologies, on BCIs or CIs. We identified 169 ethical implications that have been categorized under seven main themes: (a) benefits for health and well-being; (b) harm and risk; (c) autonomy; (d) societal effects; (e) clinical research; (f) regulation and governance; and (g) involvement of experts, patients and the public. Significance. The development and clinical use of visual neuroprostheses is accompanied by ethical issues that should be considered early in the technological development process. Though there is ample literature on the ethical implications of other types of neuroprostheses, such as motor neuroprostheses and CIs, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses. Our findings can serve as a starting point for further research and normative analysis.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses—a systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Systematic Review of Ethics Knowledge in Audiology Literature: A Follow-Up Study (2011–2020)

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: This systematic review aimed to update and explore the extant literature (2011–2020) regarding ethics knowledge in audiology and to compare the findings to an earlier study (2001–2010). Method: This systematic review employed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Results: MEDLINE, CINAHL, ERIC, MasterFILE Premier, E-Journals, Africa-Wide information and Academic Search Premier electronic databases, and non–peer-reviewed papers in Seminars in Hearing yielded a total of 63 papers. Following systematic screening using inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 12 full-text papers were included in this review. Pertinent data and findings from the review were tabulated and analyzed using a qualitative, deductive approach. Results showed that the 12 papers were published in nine peer-reviewed journals with a predominantly social scientific approach. This differs from the earlier review that reported only five papers with a predominantly philosophical approach. However, both the current and earlier studies focused on the rehabilitation/management role of the audiologist. In the earlier study, the focus was on moral judgment (as one of the components of moral behavior), whereas this was the focus of only half of the papers identified in this study, with the remaining papers focusing on moral sensitivity and moral motivation. Conclusions: The focus of papers had evolved and continued to include more elements related to the multiple perspectives used to analyze and describe ethics research. The body of knowledge of ethics in audiology specifically expanded in the area of social scientific research, focusing on beneficence and nonmaleficence, including moral motivation and basing research on moral judgment with the emphasis on the rehabilitation/management and education/research/administration role of audiologists.

show abstract

Frameworks for Change in Hearing Research: Valuing Qualitative Methods in the Real World

Rapport

Hughes

2020

Ear &Amp; Hearing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we examine ecological validity in hearing science from a qualitative methodological perspective. We present an overview of qualitative methods, presenting their key characteristics and contrasting these techniques with quantitative approaches to enquiry. We argue that ecological validity sits at the heart of the qualitative paradigm and seek to clearly emphasize the methodological gap that could be effectively filled by qualitative or mixed methods. In doing so, we discuss qualitative methods that may work particularly well in enhancing ecological validity in hearing science and explore their range of applications in this field. These approaches can be applied to a wide range of hearing health research questions to present a unique understanding of people’s experiences of disease and disability, indicating gradations of personal health and illness in nuanced ways. We acknowledge and commend the current expansion of qualitative methods within hearing science and present recommendations for increasing ecological validity, both in the design of future studies and in the context of the wider research cycle. We call on qualitative researchers to strive for transparency, rigor, and trustworthiness and highlight challenges to be overcome if qualitative methods are to contribute to effective, efficient research strategies. To facilitate the transference of high-quality research findings into practice, we stress the need for joined-up working to create a research culture that promotes coproduction of ecologically valid research designs, involving not only hearing researchers but also implementation scientists, hearing healthcare professionals and, most importantly, people with hearing loss for whom these efforts could make a difference.

show abstract

Exploring the recruitment, ethical considerations, conduct and information dissemination of an audiology trial: a pretrial qualitative study (q-COACH)

Cited by 3 publications

References 46 publications

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses—a systematic review

Ethical implications of visual neuroprostheses—a systematic review

A Systematic Review of Ethics Knowledge in Audiology Literature: A Follow-Up Study (2011–2020)

Frameworks for Change in Hearing Research: Valuing Qualitative Methods in the Real World

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About