National Human Research Ethics: A Preliminary Comparative Case Study of Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law

BACKGROUND

In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients.

METHODS

We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws.

RESULTS

On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones.

CONCLUSION

The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Opportunities, risks and challenges in global mental health and population neuroscience: a case of Sino-German cooperation

Large scale prospective cohorts have now been established across several countries, and continents, and among the aims include an assessment of the developmental trajectory of mental disorders. This level of international cooperation helps transfer research findings to new social contexts as well as enabling an assessment of which findings can be replicated, and which interventions are most effective, in different social and cultural settings. However, data sharing across different regional and national health care systems requires a careful consideration of different standards in ethical research, data protection and patient care, including respect for patients' rights, in cooperating jurisdictions. In our review, we discuss ethical, legal and practical challenges associated with such cooperation with a focus on research participants, specifically patient recruitment, by considering the instance of China and Germany. Our broader aim is to promote international cooperation by identifying key challenges that arise in international cooperation, and to facilitate an exchange in relation to legal and practical approaches.

Development and validation of a psychometric scale for assessing healthcare professionals' knowledge in radiation protection

INTRODUCTION

Healthcare professionals must sufficiently understand ionising radiation and the associated protection measures to avoid unnecessarily exposing patients and staff to ionising radiation. Hence, a proper safety culture is important to lowering health risks. The development and establishment of an instrument that can indicate healthcare professionals' understanding/knowledge of radiation protection concepts can greatly contribute to a good safety culture. The purpose of the present study was to develop and psychometrically test the Healthcare Professional Knowledge of Radiation Protection (HPKRP) self-evaluation scale, which was designed to measure the knowledge level of radiation protection by healthcare professionals working with ionising radiation in a clinical environment.

METHODS

The presented research employed a cross-sectional study design. Data were collected from eight Finnish hospitals in 2017. A total of 252 eligible nurses responded to the newly developed HPKRP scale. The face and content validity were tested with the Content Validity Index (CVI). Explorative factor analysis was used to test construct validity, whereas reliability was tested with Cronbach's alpha.

RESULTS

Overall S-CVI for the HPKRP scale was 0.83. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a three-factor model for the HcPCRP scale containing 33 items. The first factor was defined by Radiation physics and principles of radiation usage, the second factor by Radiation protection, and the third factor by Guidelines of safe ionising radiation usage. These three factors explained 72% of the total variance. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the scale ranged from 0.93 to 0.96.

CONCLUSION

The results provide strong evidence for the validity and reliability of the HPKRP scale. Additionally, educators can use the scale to evaluate healthcare students' understanding in radiation safety before and after education.