Ethics and community involvement in syntheses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian health: A systematic review

Matthew O. Gribble, Deana M.Around Him

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

Background: The objective of this research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health. Methods: Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; results were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: We identified 107 papers published from 1986 through 2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7% reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5% reported on tribal approval, and 4% referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63% used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28% discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research. Conclusions: Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-24
Number of pages24
JournalAJOB Empirical Bioethics
Volume5
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2014

Fingerprint

Oceanic Ancestry Group
North American Indians
American Indian
Ethics
moral philosophy
Meta-Analysis
Health
health
community
Population Groups
Ethical Review
Research
ethnic group
Vocabulary
Research Ethics Committees
PubMed
Libraries
artificial intelligence
Community Participation
Alaska Natives

Keywords

  • Alaska Native
  • American Indian
  • Indigenous
  • Native Hawaiian
  • Participatory research
  • Research ethics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Ethics and community involvement in syntheses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian health : A systematic review. / Gribble, Matthew O.; Him, Deana M.Around.

In: AJOB Empirical Bioethics, Vol. 5, No. 2, 01.01.2014, p. 1-24.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{d6f24af73549400ba756db4dbfb3538e,
title = "Ethics and community involvement in syntheses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian health: A systematic review",
abstract = "Background: The objective of this research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health. Methods: Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; results were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: We identified 107 papers published from 1986 through 2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7{\%} reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5{\%} reported on tribal approval, and 4{\%} referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63{\%} used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28{\%} discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research. Conclusions: Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research.",
keywords = "Alaska Native, American Indian, Indigenous, Native Hawaiian, Participatory research, Research ethics",
author = "Gribble, {Matthew O.} and Him, {Deana M.Around}",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1080/21507716.2013.848956",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "1--24",
journal = "AJOB Empirical Bioethics",
issn = "2329-4515",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ethics and community involvement in syntheses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian health

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Gribble, Matthew O.

AU - Him, Deana M.Around

PY - 2014/1/1

Y1 - 2014/1/1

N2 - Background: The objective of this research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health. Methods: Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; results were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: We identified 107 papers published from 1986 through 2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7% reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5% reported on tribal approval, and 4% referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63% used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28% discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research. Conclusions: Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research.

AB - Background: The objective of this research was to review reporting of ethical concerns and community involvement in peer-reviewed systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning American Indian, Alaska Native, or Native Hawaiian (AI/AN/NH) health. Methods: Text words and indexed vocabulary terms were used to query PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and the Native Health Database for systematic reviews or meta-analyses concerning AI/AN/NH health published in peer-reviewed journals, followed by a search through reference lists. Each article was abstracted by two independent reviewers; results were discussed until consensus was reached. Results: We identified 107 papers published from 1986 through 2012 that were primarily about AI/AN/NH health or presented findings separately for AI/AN/NH communities. Two reported seeking indigenous reviewer feedback; none reported seeking input from tribes and communities. Approximately 7% reported on institutional review board (IRB) approval of included studies, 5% reported on tribal approval, and 4% referenced the sovereignty of AI/AN tribes. Approximately 63% used evidence from more than one AI/AN/NH population study, and 28% discussed potential benefits to communities from the synthesis research. Conclusions: Reporting of ethics and community involvement are not prominent. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses making community-level inferences may pose risks to communities. Future systematic reviews and meta-analyses should consider ethical and participatory dimensions of research.

KW - Alaska Native

KW - American Indian

KW - Indigenous

KW - Native Hawaiian

KW - Participatory research

KW - Research ethics

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904468480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904468480&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/21507716.2013.848956

DO - 10.1080/21507716.2013.848956

M3 - Review article

AN - SCOPUS:84904468480

VL - 5

SP - 1

EP - 24

JO - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

JF - AJOB Empirical Bioethics

SN - 2329-4515

IS - 2

ER -