Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T20:15:54.515Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ethical Concerns of Research Ethics Committees in Suicide Research: A Qualitative Study From Pakistan

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2024

Muqaddas Asif
Affiliation:
Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning, Karachi, Pakistan University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Rakhshi Memon*
Affiliation:
University College London, London, United Kingdom
Ameer B. Khoso
Affiliation:
Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning, Karachi, Pakistan University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
Zaib un Nisa
Affiliation:
Pakistan Institute of Living and Learning, Karachi, Pakistan
Nusrat Husain
Affiliation:
University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
*
*Presenting author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

Suicide is a global public health issue that requires sensitive research to inform effective prevention and treatment strategies. Despite the benefits of such research, it is accompanied by significant ethical challenges such as the potential for harm to participants' wellbeing. Various studies have explored the views of researchers in suicide research. This qualitative study aimed to explore the research ethics committee (REC) members’ experiences with suicide-related study applications to ascertain whether there are differences in approaches to dealing with suicide-related study applications.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured interviews with members of RECs (n = 9) from research-intensive universities and ethics committees in Pakistan. We also conducted a discussion group (n = 13) with members of REC from Pakistan, Nigeria and Sri Lanka. The topic guide delved into the opinions of REC members regarding ethical issues that they have come across while reviewing self-harm/suicide-related research proposals, the relevance of these issues with specific study designs, recommendations to resolve these issues, their approach to balancing risk and benefit, and guidance for researchers.

Results

The preliminary findings from thematic analysis revealed five major themes; 1) Ethical challenges, 2) Reasons for application rejection, 3) Areas of improvement, 4) Suggestions for addressing ethical issues, and 5) Researchers' attitudes towards amendments. Challenges in self-harm and suicide research included the sensitivity and stigma surrounding the topic, lack of interest and support, and difficulties in participant recruitment. The application faced rejection from the ethics committees primarily due to methodological errors, lack of procedural clarity, and insufficient understanding of the research procedure. Identified areas for improvement were the need for enhanced methodology and research patterns, as well as a better understanding of the methodological procedure. Recommendations for developing a robust research proposal included training and supervision for intervention studies, the inclusion of comprehensive ethical elements and practical plans in the proposal, and a focus on data protection, confidentiality, risk management, and harm identification. While a significant number positively acknowledged reviewer comments, some researchers opted for in-depth discussions rather than directly addressing the issues.

Conclusion

The study highlights the importance of ethical considerations and emphasises the need to address the lack of robust methodological procedures in self-harm and suicide research. Addressing these challenges and adopting suggested improvements is paramount for advancing ethical and impactful research in this context.

Type
1 Research
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.