79C3C34C52B45572883A05D425EB0F82
Goals, Objectives, and DesiredOutcomes of an Ethical Review System(2003)
https://neac.health.govt.nz/system/files/documents/pages/neac-goals-objectives.pdf
http://leaux.net/URLS/ConvertAPI Text Files/E614E30D08C7AE845649FA5504662C43.en.txt
Examining the file media/Synopses/E614E30D08C7AE845649FA5504662C43.html:
This file was generated: 2020-12-01 07:42:37
| Indicators in focus are typically shown highlighted in yellow; |
Peer Indicators (that share the same Vulnerability association) are shown highlighted in pink; |
"Outside" Indicators (those that do NOT share the same Vulnerability association) are shown highlighted in green; |
Trigger Words/Phrases are shown highlighted in gray. |
Link to Orphaned Trigger Words (Appendix (Indicator List, Indicator Peers, Trigger Words, Type/Vulnerability/Indicator Overlay)
Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input
Health / Mentally Disabled
Searching for indicator disability:
(return to top)
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Goals, Objectives, and Desired Outcomes of an Ethical Review System
p.(None):
p.(None): The National Ethics Advisory Committee – Kāhui Matatika o te Motu (NEAC) has issued a statement of Goals, Objectives,
p.(None): and Desired Outcomes of an Ethical Review System (GODO) in accordance with its statutory function to ‘determine
p.(None): nationally consistent ethical standards across the health sector’ (New Zealand Public Health and Disability Act 2000,
p.(None): s.16).
p.(None):
p.(None): The ethical review system includes ethical aspects of self-review, peer review, ethics committee review, and specialist
p.(None): review of health and disability research and related activity. It applies established ethical standards to research and
p.(None): related activity. GODO states established goals, objectives and desired outcomes that are to be applied to the ethical
p.(None): review system itself.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Overall Goals
p.(None):
p.(None): • Facilitate research and innovative practice that contributes to knowledge and improved health outcomes
p.(None):
p.(None): • Protect participants in health and disability research and innovative treatment
p.(None):
p.(None): • Find a balance that minimises risks and maximises benefits arising from health and disability research
p.(None):
p.(None): • Recognise and respect the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by enabling Māori to contribute to the ethical
p.(None): review system for health and disability research
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Objectives Desired outcomes
p.(None):
p.(None): Accountable • Public accountability requirements are defined.
p.(None): • Ethical reviews meet internationally recognised standards.
p.(None): • Ethical reviews take into account relevant legislation.
p.(None):
p.(None): Enabling • Research participants/subjects are protected.
p.(None): • Quality research is facilitated.
p.(None): • Review processes are clear about jurisdiction and coverage.
p.(None): • Awareness of ethical practice among all stakeholders is developed.
p.(None): • Good communication with affected communities is demonstrated.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): • Local input is achieved.
p.(None): • Positive relationships with all stakeholders are developed.
p.(None): • System review mechanisms are in place.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Informed • Researchers consider ethical implications from the outset; eg, there is
p.(None): clarification of who will benefit from the research (participants, the public, etc.).
p.(None): • The perspectives of affected communities are included.
p.(None): • Review processes are proactive and attend to emergent issues, and are responsive to change over time.
p.(None): • Review processes apply appropriate expertise.
p.(None): • Scientific and ethical standards are considered alongside each other where appropriate.
p.(None): • Decision-making is consistent.
p.(None): • Review capacity and relevant expertise are maintained and developed.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Enabling of Māori participation
p.(None):
...
Social / Access to Social Goods
Searching for indicator access:
(return to top)
p.(None): • Good communication with affected communities is demonstrated.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): • Local input is achieved.
p.(None): • Positive relationships with all stakeholders are developed.
p.(None): • System review mechanisms are in place.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Informed • Researchers consider ethical implications from the outset; eg, there is
p.(None): clarification of who will benefit from the research (participants, the public, etc.).
p.(None): • The perspectives of affected communities are included.
p.(None): • Review processes are proactive and attend to emergent issues, and are responsive to change over time.
p.(None): • Review processes apply appropriate expertise.
p.(None): • Scientific and ethical standards are considered alongside each other where appropriate.
p.(None): • Decision-making is consistent.
p.(None): • Review capacity and relevant expertise are maintained and developed.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Enabling of Māori participation
p.(None):
p.(None): • A Māori ethical framework is developed and implemented.
p.(None): • Consultation with Māori is collaborative, genuine, inclusive, and appropriate.
p.(None): • Māori participation in the decision-making component of the system is facilitated.
p.(None): • The potential for diversity of opinion across iwi and regions is recognised and respected.
p.(None): • Māori research capability is facilitated.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Fair • Review processes are independent.
p.(None): • Stakeholders have access to due process.
p.(None): • Outcomes of processes are equitable.
p.(None): • Applicants to review processes have the right of reply.
p.(None): • Conflicts of interest are acknowledged and addressed.
p.(None):
p.(None): Efficient • Time and resources are used productively.
p.(None): • Reviews are timely.
p.(None): • Sector guidance is updated regularly, with opportunity for all stakeholders to participate.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
...
Social / philosophical differences/differences of opinion
Searching for indicator opinion:
(return to top)
p.(None):
p.(None): Enabling • Research participants/subjects are protected.
p.(None): • Quality research is facilitated.
p.(None): • Review processes are clear about jurisdiction and coverage.
p.(None): • Awareness of ethical practice among all stakeholders is developed.
p.(None): • Good communication with affected communities is demonstrated.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): • Local input is achieved.
p.(None): • Positive relationships with all stakeholders are developed.
p.(None): • System review mechanisms are in place.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Informed • Researchers consider ethical implications from the outset; eg, there is
p.(None): clarification of who will benefit from the research (participants, the public, etc.).
p.(None): • The perspectives of affected communities are included.
p.(None): • Review processes are proactive and attend to emergent issues, and are responsive to change over time.
p.(None): • Review processes apply appropriate expertise.
p.(None): • Scientific and ethical standards are considered alongside each other where appropriate.
p.(None): • Decision-making is consistent.
p.(None): • Review capacity and relevant expertise are maintained and developed.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Enabling of Māori participation
p.(None):
p.(None): • A Māori ethical framework is developed and implemented.
p.(None): • Consultation with Māori is collaborative, genuine, inclusive, and appropriate.
p.(None): • Māori participation in the decision-making component of the system is facilitated.
p.(None): • The potential for diversity of opinion across iwi and regions is recognised and respected.
p.(None): • Māori research capability is facilitated.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None): Fair • Review processes are independent.
p.(None): • Stakeholders have access to due process.
p.(None): • Outcomes of processes are equitable.
p.(None): • Applicants to review processes have the right of reply.
p.(None): • Conflicts of interest are acknowledged and addressed.
p.(None):
p.(None): Efficient • Time and resources are used productively.
p.(None): • Reviews are timely.
p.(None): • Sector guidance is updated regularly, with opportunity for all stakeholders to participate.
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
p.(None):
...
Orphaned Trigger Words
Appendix
Indicator List
| Indicator | Vulnerability |
|---|
| access | Access to Social Goods |
| disability | Mentally Disabled |
| opinion | philosophical differences/differences of opinion |
Indicator Peers (Indicators in Same Vulnerability)
Trigger Words
capacity
ethics
protect
Applicable Type / Vulnerability / Indicator Overlay for this Input