Finding Power in Politeness: Identifying Competent and Courageous Social Justice Advocacy At Work (ICPSR 216962)
Practice Patterns of Young Physicians, 1997: [75 Largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States] (ICPSR 2829)
Preventing Ethical Disasters in the Practice of Medicine, United States, 2008-2016 (ICPSR 38314)
Researchers researched and analyzed 280 cases of serious wrongdoing in medicine involving three kinds of violations: improper prescribing of controlled substances (IPCS), sexual abuse of patients (SAP), and unnecessary invasive procedures (UIP). They focused on these three types of wrongdoing because each is traumatizing to patients, causing physical and emotional harm, financial loss, and sometimes death. They are often the cause of major disciplinary actions by medical boards.
The methodological approach involved identifying potential cases of serious wrongdoing through systematic literature reviews of court records, medical boards reports, newspaper articles, and online materials for each case. Using a detailed codebook, researchers performed descriptive coding of the literature and used a criminal law framework to identify the salient individual and environmental factors that predicted motive, means, and opportunity (MMO) for each case. Within each of the three types of wrongdoing, they identified typologies of cases using qualitative analysis.
Finally, researchers held a working group meeting with experts to reach a consensus on how findings can inform medical education, policies, and oversight practices to reduce the rates and the duration of serious wrongdoing.
Stakeholder Views on Intellectual Disability Research Ethics, New York, 2013 (ICPSR 38311)
Adults with intellectual disabilities (ID) face significant physical and mental health disparities. Ethical challenges may discourage their inclusion in research and hinder scientific advancements to reduce these health disparities. Five core groups are adults with ID, individuals who provide informal support to adults with ID, individuals who provide services to adults with ID, ID researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members. Little is known about these stakeholders' opinions on how to ethically include adults with ID in research. Increasing this knowledge base, especially by inviting input from groups whose opinions are rarely examined, is critical to helping the scientific community devise and deploy sensitive and responsive practices and encouraging research to reduce pressing disparities.
The research's long-term goal is to encourage science that is sensitive to the ethical and social dimensions of research with adults with ID and more inclusive of this population. The research's aim was to qualitatively study the views of adults with ID, persons who provide informal support to adults with ID, and persons who provide services to adults with ID on the participation of adults with ID in self-report research. The focus on self-report research that aims to study the thoughts and experiences of adults with intellectual disability reflects the field's increased emphasis on direct representation in such research and the less clear risks this research may bear.