Suchergebnisse

Ethnographic research among people who inject drugs (PWID) involves complex ethical issues. While ethical review frameworks have been critiqued by social scientists, there is a lack of social science research examining institutional ethical review processes, particularly in relation to ethnographic work. This case study describes the institutional ethical review of an ethnographic research project using observational fieldwork and in-depth interviews to examine injection drug use. The review process and the salient concerns of the review committee are recounted, and the investigators' responses to the committee's concerns and requests are described to illustrate how key issues were resolved. The review committee expressed concerns regarding researcher safety when conducting fieldwork, and the investigators were asked to liaise with the police regarding the proposed research. An ongoing dialogue with the institutional review committee regarding researcher safety and autonomy from police involvement, as well as formal consultation with a local drug user group and solicitation of opinions from external experts, helped to resolve these issues. This case study suggests that ethical review processes can be particularly challenging for ethnographic projects focused on illegal behaviours, and that while some challenges could be mediated by modifying existing ethical review procedures, there is a need for legislation that provides legal protection of research data and participant confidentiality. © 2013 Elsevier Ltd.

Background: As research on HIV vaccines continues to advance, studies exploring the feasibility of this intervention are necessary to inform uptake and dissemination strategies with key populations, including people who use drugs (PWUD). Methods: We conducted 25 in-depth qualitative interviews examining HIV vaccine acceptability among PWUD in Vancouver, Canada. Participants were recruited from an ongoing prospective cohort of HIV-negative PWUD. Data were coded using NVivo, and analyzed thematically. Results: Acceptability was framed by practical considerations such as cost and side effects, and was influenced by broader trust of government bodies and health care professionals. While an HIV vaccine was perceived as an important prevention tool, willingness to be vaccinated was low. Results suggest that future vaccine implementation must consider how to minimize the burden an HIV vaccine may place on PWUD. Centering the role of health care providers in information dissemination and delivery may assist with uptake. Conclusions: Our findings suggest improvements in care and improved patient-provider relationships would increase the acceptability of a potential HIV vaccine among this population.

The Gynecologic Cancer InterGroup (GCIG) Fifth Ovarian Cancer Consensus Conference (OCCC) was held in Tokyo, Japan from 7 to 9 November 2015. It provided international consensus on 15 important questions in 4 topic areas, which were generated in accordance with the mission statement to establish 'International Consensus for Designing Better Clinical Trials'. The methodology for obtaining consensus was previously established and followed during the Fifth OCCC. All 29 clinical trial groups of GCIG participated in program development and deliberations. Draft consensus statements were discussed in topic groups as well as in a plenary forum. The final statements were then presented to all 29 member groups for voting and documentation of the level of consensus. Full consensus was obtained for 11 of the 15 statements with 28/29 groups agreeing to 3 statements, and 27/29 groups agreeing to 1 statement. The high acceptance rate of the statements among trial groups reflects the fact that we share common questions, and recognise important unmet needs that will guide future research in ovarian cancer. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved. ; Peer reviewed