@article{45f2046386a949b995f36ac5acc6ad2a,
title = "Standards of practice in empirical bioethics research: Towards a consensus",
abstract = "Background: This paper reports the process and outcome of a consensus finding project, which began with a meeting at the Brocher Foundation in May 2015. The project sought to generate and reach consensus on standards of practice for Empirical Bioethics research. The project involved 16 academics from 5 different European Countries, with a range of disciplinary backgrounds. Methods: The consensus process used a modified Delphi approach. Results: Consensus was reached on 15 standards of practice, organised into 6 domains of research practice (Aims, Questions, Integration, Conduct of Empirical Work, Conduct of Normative Work; Training \& Expertise). Conclusions: Through articulating these standards we outline a position that encourages responses, and through those responses we will be able to identify points of agreement and contestation that will drive the conversation forward. In that vein, we would encourage researchers, funders and journals to engage with what we have proposed, and respond to us, so that our community of practice of empirical bioethics research can develop and evolve further.",
keywords = "Consensus, Empirical bioethics, Methodology, Methods, Standards",
author = "Jonathan Ives and Michael Dunn and Bert Molewijk and Jan Schildmann and Kristine B{\ae}r{\o}e and Lucy Frith and Richard Huxtable and Elleke Landeweer and Marcel Mertz and Veerle Provoost and Annette Rid and Sabine Salloch and Mark Sheehan and Daniel Strech and \{De Vries\}, Martine and Guy Widdershoven",
note = "Funding Information: We would like to thank the Brocher Foundation who funded the meeting and provided us with a wonderful location in which to meet. Thank you also to Samia Hurst, who was unable to participate in the consensus process, but attended the final day and offered some helpful observations about our process. Mark Sheehan is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, grant BRC-1215-20008 to the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Oxford. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. Funding Information: The lead authors of this paper (JI, MD, BM, JS) applied for funding from the Brocher Foundation to hold a 2.5 day meeting (May 2015) in which an attempt would be made to generate standards of practice and reach consensus. We utilised an adapted Delphi process, which is a recognised and well established technique for reaching consensus and is amenable to modification to suit specific aims [25]. The Delphi method, broadly speaking, is a structured consensus finding process, which typically involves administering questionnaires to expert participants in an iterative series of rounds. After each round, feedback is provided to participants that summarizes the views of the group, suggests a common position, and then seeks further input. According to Hsu \& Sandford [26]. “The feedback process allows and encourages the selected Delphi participants to reassess their initial judgments about the information provided in previous iterations. Thus, in a Delphi study, the results of previous iterations regarding specific statements and/or items can change or be modified by individual panel members in later iterations based on their ability to review and assess the comments and feedback provided by the other Delphi panelists.” (p2). Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2018 The Author(s).",
year = "2018",
month = jul,
day = "10",
doi = "10.1186/s12910-018-0304-3",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
journal = "BMC Medical Ethics",
issn = "1472-6939",
publisher = "Springer Nature",
number = "1",
}