Details about informed consent procedures of randomized controlled trials should be reported transparently

Adapting implementation science for higher education research: the systematic study of implementing evidence-based practices in college classrooms

Finding better ways to implement effective teaching and learning strategies in higher education is urgently needed to help address student outcomes such as retention rates, graduation rates, and learning. Psychologists contribute to the science and art of teaching and learning in higher education under many flags, including cognitive psychology, science of learning, educational psychology, scholarship of teaching and learning in psychology, discipline-based educational research in psychology, design-based implementation research, and learning sciences. Productive, rigorous collaboration among researchers and instructors helps. However, translational research and practice-based research alone have not closed the translation gap between the research laboratory and the college classroom. Fortunately, scientists and university faculty can draw on the insights of decades of research on the analogous science-to-practice gap in medicine and public health. Health researchers now add to their toolbox of translational and practice-based research the systematic study of the process of implementation in real work settings directly. In this article, we define implementation science for cognitive psychologists as well as educational psychologists, learning scientists, and others with an interest in use-inspired basic cognitive research, propose a novel model incorporating implementation science for translating cognitive science to classroom practice in higher education, and provide concrete recommendations for how use-inspired basic cognitive science researchers can better understand those factors that affect the uptake of their work with implementation science.

The ethical justification for inclusion of neonates in pragmatic randomized clinical trials for emergency newborn care

BACKGROUND

Research guidelines generally recognize vulnerable populations to include neonates with the aim of enhancing protections from harm. In practice, such guidance results in limiting participation in randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Yet while medical care of neonates should be based on best research evidence to ensure that safe, efficacious treatment or procedures are used, this seldom happens in contemporary practice.

DISCUSSION

The compelling need to generate information on effectiveness and safety of procedures and medications that are already in use during neonatal care has led to increase in calls for pragmatic randomized clinical trials (PCTs). This raises ethical concerns as to whether exclusion of the vulnerable populations from research participations constitutes harm. First, neonates are denied access to both potentially beneficial research outputs and an opportunity to generate data on how interventions or medications perform in diverse clinical settings and inform clinical decision-making. Secondly, risks and harms in PCTs may differ from traditional RCTs, and can be reduced by modifications in study designs. The latter may involve assessment of effectiveness of comparable medication, devices or practices (whose safety data is available), randomization at the group level rather than at the individual level, avoidance of invasive and innovative study procedures, reliance on locally available data on relevant patient outcomes, and employment of procedures that tend to meet the criteria of minimal risk for human subject research. Thirdly, informed consent procedures should be modified from those of traditional RCTs, as neonates in traditional RCTs may be vulnerable to different extents in PCTs. Lastly, regulatory and oversight procedures designed for traditional RCT settings need modification, as they may not be translatable, feasible, appropriate or even ethical to apply in PCTs.

CONCLUSION

The principle of justice, commonly interpreted as preventing an inequitable burden of research, should also allow fair access to potential benefits from PCTs for neonates and other vulnerable populations. Under certain conditions, prospective randomized trials involving neonates should be ethically permissible to allow inclusion of neonates in research. This may require modification of the research design, consent procedures or regulations for research oversight.

Why and how we should care about the General Data Protection Regulation

The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the new European Union-wide (EU) law on data protection, which is a great step towards more comprehensive and more far-reaching protection of individuals' personal data. In this editorial, we describe why and how we - as researchers within the field of health psychology - should care about the GDPR. In the first part, we explain when the GDPR is applicable, who is accountable for data protection, and what is covered by the notions of personal data and processing. In the second part, we explain aspects of the GDPR that are relevant for researchers within the field of health psychology (e.g., obtaining informed consent, data minimisation, and open science). We focus on questions that researchers may ask themselves in their daily practice. Compliance with the GDPR requires adopting research practices (e.g., data minimisation and anonymization procedures) that are not yet commonly used, but serve the fundamental right to protection of personal data of study participants.