Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Oct 21;17(1):62.
doi: 10.1186/s12910-016-0148-7.

Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines

Signe Mezinska  1 , Péter Kakuk  2 , Goran Mijaljica  3 , Marcin Waligóra  4 , Dónal P O'Mathúna  5
Affiliations

Research in disaster settings: a systematic qualitative review of ethical guidelines

Signe Mezinska et al. BMC Med Ethics. .

Abstract

Background: Conducting research during or in the aftermath of disasters poses many specific practical and ethical challenges. This is particularly the case with research involving human subjects. The extraordinary circumstances of research conducted in disaster settings require appropriate regulations to ensure the protection of human participants. The goal of this study is to systematically and qualitatively review the existing ethical guidelines for disaster research by using the constant comparative method (CCM).

Methods: We performed a systematic qualitative review of disaster research ethics guidelines to collect and compare existing regulations. Guidelines were identified by a three-tiered search strategy: 1) searching databases (PubMed and Google Scholar), 2) an Internet search (Google), and 3) a search of the references in the included documents from the first two searches. We used the constant comparative method (CCM) for analysis of included guidelines.

Results: Fourteen full text guidelines were included for analysis. The included guidelines covered the period 2000-2014. Qualitative analysis of the included guidelines revealed two core themes: vulnerability and research ethics committee review. Within each of the two core themes, various categories and subcategories were identified.

Conclusions: Some concepts and terms identified in analyzed guidelines are used in an inconsistent manner and applied in different contexts. Conceptual clarity is needed in this area as well as empirical evidence to support the statements and requirements included in analyzed guidelines.

Keywords: Disaster; Disaster research; Ethics guidelines; Research ethics; Research ethics committee; Vulnerability.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Screening process for identified articles
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Cuny FC. Introduction to disaster management lesson 1: the scope of disaster management. Prehospital Disaster Med. 1992;7(4):400–9. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X00039856. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sundnes KO, Birnbaum ML. Health disaster management: guidelines for evaluation and research in the Utstein style. Prehospital Disaster Med. 2003;17(Suppl 3):1–177. - PubMed
    1. Hunt MR, Anderson JA, Boulanger RF. Ethical implications of diversity in disaster research. Am J Disaster Med. 2012;7(3):211–21. doi: 10.5055/ajdm.2012.0096. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mfutso-Bengo J, Masiye F, Muula A. Ethical challenges in conducting research in humanitarian crisis situations. Malawi Med J. 2008;20(2):46–9. - PMC - PubMed
    1. O’Mathúna DP. Conducting research in the aftermath of disasters: Ethical considerations. J Evid-Based Med. 2010;3(2):65–75. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2010.01076.x. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types