The objective of this article is to compare various ethical issues considered by social scientists and research ethics committees in the evaluation of mental health social research protocols. We contacted 47 social scientists and 10 members of ethics committees in Mexico with two electronic national surveys that requested information from both groups related to the application of ethical principles in mental health social research. The results showed no significant difference between these groups in the value placed on the ethical issues explored. Based on this finding, we make proposals to strengthen the collaboration between the two groups.
AbbottL.GradyC. (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 3-19.
2.
AchíoT. M. (2003). Los comités de ética y la investigación en ciencias sociales [Ethics committees and social science research]. Ciencias Sociales, 99, 85-95.
BarbosaA. S.BoeryR.FerrariM. R. (2012). A submissão e a revisão ética de protocolos de pesquisa pelos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa (CEP). Evidentia, 9(37). Retrieved from http://www.index-f.com/evidentia/n37/ev7757.php
5.
BroomA. (2006). Ethical issues in social research. Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 14, 151-156.
6.
Consejo de Organizaciones Internacionales de las Ciencias Médicas. (2003). Pautas éticas internacionales para la investigación biomédica en seres humanos [International ethical guidelines for biomedical research in humans]. Santiago, Chile: Programa Regional de Bioética PAHO/WHO.
7.
De JongJ. P.Van ZwietenM. C. B.WillemsD. L. (2012). Ethical review from the inside: Repertoires of evaluation in Research Ethics Committee meetings. Sociology of Health & Illness, 34, 1039-1052.
8.
De WetK. (2010). The importance of ethical appraisal in social science research: Reviewing a Faculty of Humanities Research Ethics Committee. Journal of Academic Ethics, 8, 301-314.
9.
FigueroaJ. G.CoimbraC. E. (2005). Algunas reflexiones sobre las dimensiones éticas de la investigación social sobre salud [Some reflections on the ethical dimensions of social research on health]. In de Souza MinayoM.CoimbraC. (Eds.), Críticas e atuantes: ciências sociais e humanas em saúde na América Latina (pp. 61-76). Brasil: FIOCRUZ.
10.
FitchK. L. (2005). Difficult interactions between IRBs and investigators: Applications and solutions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 269-276.
11.
FryC.HallW. (2002). An ethical framework for drug epidemiology: Identifying the issues. Offprint From Bulletin on Narcotics, LIV(1-2), 131-142.
12.
FuentesD.RevillaD. (2007). Acreditación de Comités de Ética en Investigación, como parte de un proceso [Accreditation of Research Ethics Committees, as part of a process]. Anales de la Facultad de Medicina, 68(1), 67-74.
13.
GutaA.NixonS. A.WilsonM. G. (2013). Resisting the seduction of “ethics creep”: Using Foucault to surface complexity and contradiction in research ethics review. Social Science & Medicine, 98, 301-310.
14.
GutaA.WilsonM. G.FlickerS.TraversR.MasonC.WenyeveG.O’CampoP. (2010). Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(2), 35-46.
15.
LolasF.OutomuroD. (2006). Ética en la publicación de los resultados de la investigación [Ethics in the publication of research results]. In LolasF.QuezadaA.RodríguezE. (Eds.), Investigación en Salud. Dimensión Ética [Health Research. Ethical Dimension] (pp. 259-272). Santiago, Chile: Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioética, Universidad de Chile.
16.
MeoA. I. (2010). Consentimiento informado, anonimato y confidencialidad en investigación social. La experiencia internacional y el caso de la sociología en argentina [Informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality in social research. International experience and the case of sociology in Argentina]. Aposta, revista de ciencias sociales, No. 44. Retrieved from http://www.apostadigital.com/revistav3/hemeroteca/aines.pdf
17.
MinayoM. C. S.GuerrieroI. C. Z. (2014). Reflexividade como éthos da pesquisa qualitativa [Reflexivity as ethos of qualitative research]. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 19, 1103-1112.
18.
MondragónL. (2007). Ética de la investigación psicosocial [Ethics of psychosocial research]. Salud Mental, 30(6), 25-31.
19.
MondragónL. (2009). Consentimiento informado: Una praxis dialógica para la investigación [Informed Consent: A dialogical praxis for research]. Revista de Investigación Clínica, 61, 73-82.
20.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research (1st ed.). Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
21.
Organización Mundial de la Salud. (1999). Dando prioridad a las mujeres: Recomendaciones éticas y de seguridad para la investigación sobre la violencia doméstica contra las mujeres [Giving priority to women: Ethical and safety recommendations for research on domestic violence against women]. Ginebra, Suiza: Programa Mundial sobre pruebas científicas para las políticas de salud, Organización Mundial de la Salud [Geneva, Switzerland: World Program on Scientific Evidence for Health Policies, World Health Organization].
22.
Palma-MorgadoD.Marín-GilR.González-GarcíaL.Torelló-IserteJ.Santos-LozanoJ. M.Ortega-CalvoY. M. (2015). La evaluación axiológica de los Proyectos en los comités de Ética de la investigación [Axiological evaluation of the Projects in the Research Ethics Committees]. Ars Pharmaceutica, 56(2), 1-6.
23.
ResnikD. B. (2004). Liability for institutional review boards: From regulation to litigation. The Journal of Legal Medicine, 25, 131-184.
24.
Rodríguez YuntaE. (2005). Cultura ética e investigación en salud [Ethical culture and health research]. Acta Bioethica, 11, 11-21.
25.
RovalettiL. M. (2006). La evaluación ética en las ciencias humanas y/o sociales. La investigación científica: Entre la libertad y la responsabilidad [Ethical evaluation in the human and / or social sciences. Scientific research: Between freedom and responsibility]. Acta Bioethica, 12, 243-250.
26.
SieberJ. (2001). Privacy and confidentiality: As related to human research in social and behavioral science. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission ’[NBAC] (Ed.), Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants: Commissioned papers and staff analysis (Vol. II). MD. Retrieved from http://www.onlineethics.org/cms/17207.aspx
World Health Organization. (2003). DGO/ETH and regional focal points [Video conference]. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
29.
Zwareva MashiriE. C. (2010). Los comités de ética de investigación biomédica y psicosocial en Bolivia [The biomedical and psychosocial research ethics committees in Bolivia]. Acta Bioethica, 16, 87-91.
