2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/154666
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Scientific Misconduct: Experiences of Research Coordinators
Abstract:
Scientific Misconduct: Experiences of Research Coordinators
Conference Sponsor:Sigma Theta Tau International
Conference Year:2005
Author:Broome, Marion E., PhD, RN, FAAN
P.I. Institution Name:Indiana University
Title:University Dean and Professor
Co-Authors:Barbara Habermann, RN, PhD; Erica Pryor, RN, PhD
The purpose of this study was to conduct a national survey of clinical research coordinators in order to describe their beliefs, attitudes about and experiences with SM. To date, 256 eligible RCs completed the SMQ-R, 54(21.1%) indicated awareness of SM occurrences within the last year and 56 described an actual occurrence. The mean number of studies for which RCs were responsible for enrolling subjects was 5.18 (sd=5.42), while the mean number of studies for which respondents were responsible for following (but not enrolling) subjects was 6.95 (sd=8.63). The most prevalent SM types reported were violations of protocols for procedures (84.4%) and subject enrollment (74.5%), but most described the frequency of these violations as seldom. Twenty percent indicated that coercion of potential subjects occurred. One-fourth (24.6%) indicated that pressure from sponsors to engage in unethical practices occurred; 44.7% indicated that they were concerned about the amount of SM. RCs believed chances for getting caught for SM were high (73.0%) and penalties would be severe (77.3%). Two-thirds (67.6%) indicated that if someone engaged in SM and was reported at their institution, then they were very likely to be disciplined; however, 12.1% indicated that the likelihood of discipline would depend on the person's position (investigator or staff). At least 25% of respondents identified the following as strong influences on SM: funding pressures, need for recognition, need for publication, insufficient involvement or low interest of PI, and intensity of protocols for which RC was responsible. The number of protocols for which the RC was responsible was described as having some influence by 57.1% and a strong influence by 24.2% of respondents.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Sigma Theta Tau International

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleScientific Misconduct: Experiences of Research Coordinatorsen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/154666-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Scientific Misconduct: Experiences of Research Coordinators</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Sigma Theta Tau International</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2005</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Broome, Marion E., PhD, RN, FAAN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">Indiana University</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">University Dean and Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">mbroome@iupui.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Barbara Habermann, RN, PhD; Erica Pryor, RN, PhD</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">The purpose of this study was to conduct a national survey of clinical research coordinators in order to describe their beliefs, attitudes about and experiences with SM. To date, 256 eligible RCs completed the SMQ-R, 54(21.1%) indicated awareness of SM occurrences within the last year and 56 described an actual occurrence. The mean number of studies for which RCs were responsible for enrolling subjects was 5.18 (sd=5.42), while the mean number of studies for which respondents were responsible for following (but not enrolling) subjects was 6.95 (sd=8.63). The most prevalent SM types reported were violations of protocols for procedures (84.4%) and subject enrollment (74.5%), but most described the frequency of these violations as seldom. Twenty percent indicated that coercion of potential subjects occurred. One-fourth (24.6%) indicated that pressure from sponsors to engage in unethical practices occurred; 44.7% indicated that they were concerned about the amount of SM. RCs believed chances for getting caught for SM were high (73.0%) and penalties would be severe (77.3%). Two-thirds (67.6%) indicated that if someone engaged in SM and was reported at their institution, then they were very likely to be disciplined; however, 12.1% indicated that the likelihood of discipline would depend on the person's position (investigator or staff). At least 25% of respondents identified the following as strong influences on SM: funding pressures, need for recognition, need for publication, insufficient involvement or low interest of PI, and intensity of protocols for which RC was responsible. The number of protocols for which the RC was responsible was described as having some influence by 57.1% and a strong influence by 24.2% of respondents.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T13:10:52Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T13:10:52Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipSigma Theta Tau Internationalen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.