2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/161160
Type:
Presentation
Title:
The Nature of Scientific Misconduct: A National Survey
Abstract:
The Nature of Scientific Misconduct: A National Survey
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2005
Author:Habermann, Barbara, PhD, RN
P.I. Institution Name:University of Alabama at Birmingham
Title:Associate Professor
Contact Address:School of Nursing, 1530 3rd Ave. S NB 414, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA
Contact Telephone:205-975-0249
Co-Authors:Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN, Dean and Erica R. Pryor, PhD, RN
In this national survey of scientific misconduct research coordinators
(RCs) who indicated they had knowledge of a specific instance of
misconduct were asked to answer twelve open ended questions about the
instance. These questions focused on the instance, actions taken, whether
the incidence was reported and to whom, what the outcome was, and how they
would handle scientific misconduct if it occurred again. 178 participants
(19.1% of overall sample) responded, 57% of whom worked in an academic
medical center, 80% held certification in clinical research, 62% were
nurses by discipline, and 74.5 % held a baccalaureate or higher degree.
Responses were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis.
Two investigators along with two doctoral students read the first 56
responses and developed a list of preliminary codes, followed by two
members of the research team coding each of the responses independently
and then meeting to resolve any differences. Findings indicate there are
different types of scientific misconduct occurring with falsifying data
the most common, followed by inclusion/exclusion criteria violations. At
times, the nature of the misconduct was such that the RCs perceived it to
be a patient safety concern. Other misconduct included informed consent
violations, coercion, protocol violations, personal financial gain,
untrained personnel and lack of IRB approval. Most often the person
committing the scientific misconduct was the principal investigator (57%).
To whom the incident was reported to varied greatly and appeared to be
influenced by the structure of the organization. The outcomes of reporting
an incident varied greatly with the violator being fired or disciplined
(24%) most common followed the person reporting the incident being fired
(9%). This is the first national survey of RCs who validated previous
reports of the prevalence of SM, but also provided descriptions of
precipitating factors and consequences as well.
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleThe Nature of Scientific Misconduct: A National Surveyen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/161160-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">The Nature of Scientific Misconduct: A National Survey</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</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">Habermann, Barbara, PhD, RN</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Alabama at Birmingham</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Associate Professor</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">School of Nursing, 1530 3rd Ave. S NB 414, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">205-975-0249</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">habermab@uab.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Marion E. Broome, PhD, RN, FAAN, Dean and Erica R. Pryor, PhD, RN</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">In this national survey of scientific misconduct research coordinators <br/> (RCs) who indicated they had knowledge of a specific instance of <br/> misconduct were asked to answer twelve open ended questions about the <br/> instance. These questions focused on the instance, actions taken, whether <br/> the incidence was reported and to whom, what the outcome was, and how they <br/> would handle scientific misconduct if it occurred again. 178 participants <br/> (19.1% of overall sample) responded, 57% of whom worked in an academic <br/> medical center, 80% held certification in clinical research, 62% were <br/> nurses by discipline, and 74.5 % held a baccalaureate or higher degree. <br/> Responses were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis. <br/> Two investigators along with two doctoral students read the first 56 <br/> responses and developed a list of preliminary codes, followed by two <br/> members of the research team coding each of the responses independently <br/> and then meeting to resolve any differences. Findings indicate there are <br/> different types of scientific misconduct occurring with falsifying data <br/> the most common, followed by inclusion/exclusion criteria violations. At <br/> times, the nature of the misconduct was such that the RCs perceived it to <br/> be a patient safety concern. Other misconduct included informed consent <br/> violations, coercion, protocol violations, personal financial gain, <br/> untrained personnel and lack of IRB approval. Most often the person <br/> committing the scientific misconduct was the principal investigator (57%). <br/> To whom the incident was reported to varied greatly and appeared to be <br/> influenced by the structure of the organization. The outcomes of reporting <br/> an incident varied greatly with the violator being fired or disciplined <br/> (24%) most common followed the person reporting the incident being fired <br/> (9%). This is the first national survey of RCs who validated previous <br/> reports of the prevalence of SM, but also provided descriptions of <br/> precipitating factors and consequences as well.</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T23:16:52Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T23:16:52Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.