ABSTRACT
Background: Research in education advances knowledge and improves learning, but the literature does not define how to protect residents' rights as subjects in studies or how to limit the impact of their participation on their clinical training. Objective: We aimed to develop a consensual framework on how to include residents as participants in education research, with the dual goal of protecting their rights and promoting their contributions to research. Methods: A nominal group technique approach was used to structure 3 iterative meetings held with the pre-existing residency training program committee and 7 invited experts between September 2018 and April 2019. Thematic text analysis was conducted to prepare a final report, including recommendations. Results: Five themes, each with recommendations, were identified: (1) Freedom of participation: participation, non-participation, or withdrawal from a study should not interfere with teacher-learner relationship (recommendation: improve recruitment and consent forms); (2) Avoidance of over-solicitation (recommendation: limit the number of ongoing studies); (3) Management of time dedicated to participation in research (recommendations: schedule and proportion of time for study participation); (4) Emotional safety (recommendation: requirement for debriefing and confidential counseling); and (5) Educational safety: data collected during a study should not influence clinical assessment of the resident (recommendation: principal investigator should not be involved in the evaluation process of learners in clinical rotation). Conclusions: Our nominal group technique approach resulted in raising 5 specific issues about freedom of participation of residents in research in medical education, over-solicitation, time dedicated to research, emotional safety, and educational safety.
Subject(s)
Education, Medical , Internship and Residency , Clinical Competence , Curriculum , Education, Medical, Graduate/methods , Humans , Research SubjectsABSTRACT
The purpose of this article was to propose and test an integrative model on the role of perfectionism, academic motivation, and psychological adjustment difficulties in undergraduate students. The model posits that self-oriented perfectionism facilitates self-determined academic motivation, whereas socially prescribed perfectionism enhances non-self-determined academic motivation. In turn, self-determined and non-self-determined academic motivations, respectively, lead to lower and higher levels of psychological adjustment difficulties. Results from two studies using structural equation modeling analyses provided support for the model.
Subject(s)
Achievement , Adaptation, Psychological , Motivation , Personality , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Prospective Studies , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
Most of the inherited epilepsies do not follow a Mendelian inheritance pattern but rather are complex disorders. This leads us to reconsider the traditional ethical framework applying to genetics, which is still based largely on the understanding of Mendelian inheritance, to ethically use the genetic tests likely to be forthcoming for the prevention and surveillance of epilepsies. This article is a review of the ethical issues raised by family studies of the epilepsies, in both a clinical and a research context. These issues include the use of genetic tests, the scope of genetic counseling, the upholding of the risk-benefit ratio in pharmacogenetics, as well as those related to the availability of treatments, health professionals' changing responsibilities, and the communication within families. A reasonable approach calls for a case-by-case determination of whether the benefit and harm of genetic testing outweigh benefit and harm of protecting autonomy and nonmaleficence.
Subject(s)
Epilepsy/genetics , Genetic Counseling/ethics , Diagnosis , Family , Humans , PharmacogeneticsABSTRACT
Recent changes to the legal and ethical criteria that govern the inclusion of children and incompetent adults in genetic research are likely to lead to advances in research, but might leave the rights of the participants in this research in need of additional safeguards. Here, we discuss why this might be and propose policy considerations that could help to protect the rights of these particularly vulnerable groups of research participants.
