ArticleBMC medical ethics2025
'Making little ethical decisions all the time': examining an ethical framework for consumer and community involvement in research, a co-produced ethnographic study.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundConsumer and community involvement (CCI) is widely recognised as an ethical imperative in health and biomedical research. However, there is a lack of evidence and guidance regarding ethical approaches. The aim of this research was to test and refine an existing ethical framework for consumer partnerships in research to enhance understanding of ethical issues and approaches to CCI in research.
methodsA sub-analysis of a co-produced ethnographic study which explored the processes and outcomes of consumer engagement over three and a half years in a PhD research partnership, was conducted against an existing ethical framework for CCI. The framework included organisational ethics, research integrity, relational ethics, and research ethics. Participants included four consumers, two academics, and a PhD candidate in an Australian capital city. Two consumer co-researchers collaborated in this study across the research cycle. Data were obtained over three and a half years from six interviews, six focus groups, monthly online logs, field notes, and a reflexive diary. Descriptive statistics and qualitative content analysis were used to analyse 2035 units of data.
findingsA total of 1911 (93.9%) units of data aligned to an ethical category. Hence, the research team were constantly encountering ethical decision-making. A combination of organisational ethics and relational ethics was most frequently coded (30.1%, n = 576), followed by relational ethics alone (24.3%, n = 465), and research integrity and relational ethics (n = 229, 12.0%). Qualitative analysis identified some ethical tensions and many more practical and planned ethical approaches to support meaningful research partnership and positive research processes and outcomes. Examples and quotes are provided against each of the four ethical categories to illustrate and expand on the framework. An update to the framework is provided.
conclusionsThe updated framework highlighted the complexities of CCI and focused beyond traditional research ethics to include relationships, organisational factors, and research integrity. The narrative of ethical issues being a challenge to overcome in CCI, needs to change. An emphasis on adopting a proactive approach to promote ethical and authentic team power sharing, reflection, and active communication is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.