NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies – Step-by-Step Guide

The first step before starting to write the NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies, it is essential to understand the requirements of the assignment. The first step is to read the assignment prompt carefully to identify the topic, the length and format requirements. You should go through the rubric provided so that you can understand what is needed to score the maximum points for each part of the assignment. 

It is also important to identify the audience of the paper and its purpose so that it can help you determine the tone and style to use throughout. You can then create a timeline to help you complete each stage of the paper, such as conducting research, writing the paper, and revising it to avoid last-minute stress before the deadline. After identifying the formatting style to be applied to the paper, such as APA, you should review its use, such as writing citations and referencing the resources used. You should also review how to format the title page and the headings in the paper.

How to Research and Prepare for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

The next step in preparing for your paper is to conduct research and identify the best sources to use to support your arguments. Identify the list of keywords from your topic using different combinations. The first step is to visit the university library and search through its database using the important keywords related to your topic. You can also find books, peer-reviewed articles, and credible sources for your topic from PubMed, JSTOR, ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and Google Scholar. Ensure that you select the references that have been published in the last words and go through each to check for credibility. Ensure that you obtain the references in the required format, for example, in APA, so that you can save time when creating the final reference list. 

You can also group the references according to their themes that align with the outline of the paper. Go through each reference for its content and summarize the key concepts, arguments and findings for each source. You can write down your reflections on how each reference connects to the topic you are researching about. After the above steps, you can develop a strong thesis that is clear, concise and arguable. Next you should create a detailed outline of the paper so that it can help you to create headings and subheadings to be used in the paper. Ensure that you plan what point will go into each paragraph.

How to Write the Introduction for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

The introduction of the paper is the most crucial part as it helps to provide the context of your work, and will determine if the reader will be interested to read through to the end. You should start with a hook, which will help capture the reader’s attention. You should contextualize the topic by offering the reader a concise overview of the topic you are writing about so that they may understand its importance. You should state what you aim to achieve with the paper. The last part of the introduction should be your thesis statement, which provides the main argument of the paper.

How to Write the Body for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

The body of the paper helps you to present your arguments and evidence to support your claims. You can use headings and subheadings developed in the paper’s outline to guide you on how to organize the body. Start each paragraph with a topic sentence to help the reader know what point you will be discussing in that paragraph. Support your claims using the evidence conducted from the research, ensure that you cite each source properly using in-text citations. You should analyze the evidence presented and explain its significance and how it connects to the thesis statement. You should maintain a logical flow between each paragraph by using transition words and a flow of ideas.

How to Write the In-text Citations for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

In-text citations help the reader to give credit to the authors of the references they have used in their works. All ideas that have been borrowed from references, any statistics and direct quotes must be referenced properly. The name and date of publication of the paper should be included when writing an in-text citation. For example, in APA, after stating the information, you can put an in-text citation after the end of the sentence, such as (Smith, 2021). If you are quoting directly from a source, include the page number in the citation, for example (Smith, 2021, p. 15). Remember to also include a corresponding reference list at the end of your paper that provides full details of each source cited in your text. An example paragraph highlighting the use of in-text citations is as below:

The integration of technology in nursing practice has significantly transformed patient care and improved health outcomes. According to Smith (2021), the use of electronic health records (EHRs) has streamlined communication among healthcare providers, allowing for more coordinated and efficient care delivery. Furthermore, Johnson and Brown (2020) highlight that telehealth services have expanded access to care, particularly for patients in rural areas, thereby reducing barriers to treatment.

How to Write the Conclusion for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

When writing the conclusion of the paper, start by restarting your thesis, which helps remind the reader what your paper is about. Summarize the key points of the paper, by restating them. Discuss the implications of your findings and your arguments. End with a call to action that leaves a lasting impact on the reader or recommendations.

How to Format the Reference List for NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies

The reference helps provide the reader with the complete details of the sources you cited in the paper. The reference list should start with the title “References” on a new page. It should be aligned center and bolded. The references should be organized in an ascending order alphabetically and each should have a hanging indent. If a source has no author, it should be alphabetized by the title of the work, ignoring any initial articles such as “A,” “An,” or “The.” If you have multiple works by the same author, list them in chronological order, starting with the earliest publication. 

Each reference entry should include specific elements depending on the type of source. For books, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the book in italics, the edition (if applicable), and the publisher’s name. For journal articles, include the author’s last name, first initial, publication year in parentheses, the title of the article (not italicized), the title of the journal in italics, the volume number in italics, the issue number in parentheses (if applicable), and the page range of the article. For online sources, include the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) or the URL at the end of the reference. An example reference list is as follows:

References

Johnson, L. M., & Brown, R. T. (2020). The role of telehealth in improving patient outcomes. Journal of Nursing Care Quality, 35(2), 123-130. https://doi.org/10.1097/NCQ.0000000000000456

Smith, J. A. (2021). The impact of technology on nursing practice. Health Press.

NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies Instructions

Overview

Respond to the following prompts: 

• How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
• In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend? Have a look at NR505 Week 6 Reflection on Learning.

Due Date

A 5% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0 for any portion of the discussion not posted by that time).

NOTE: To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday.

A zero is the lowest score that a student can be assigned.

Faculty may submit any collaborative discussion posting to Turnitin in order to verify originality.

Total Points Possible: 50

Discussion Criteria

1. Application of Course Knowledge: The student’s initial post contributes unique perspectives or insights gleaned from personal experience or examples from the healthcare field. The student must accurately and fully discuss the topic for the week in addition to providing personal or professional examples. The student must completely answer the entire initial question. Initial post due by Wednesday at 11:59pm MT. You must include two resources in your initial post: one from your lesson or weekly reading and one from an outside scholarly source. 
2. Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
   1. Peer Response: The student responds substantively to at least one topic-related post by a student peer. A substantive post adds content or insights or asks a question that will add to the learning experience and/or generate discussion.
      1. A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the other student’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
      1. The peer response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
      1. The peer response must occur before Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
      1. The peer response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
   1. Faculty Response: The student responds substantively to at least one question by course faculty. The faculty question may be directed to the student, to another student, or to the entire class.
      1. A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the faculty’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
      1. The faculty response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
      1. Responses to the faculty member must occur by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
      1. This response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
3. Integration of Evidence: The student post provides support from a minimum of one scholarly in-text citation with a matching reference AND assigned readings OR online lessons, per discussion topic per week. Two resources total and to count must be an in-text citation.
   1. What is a scholarly resource? A scholarly resource is one that comes from a professional, peer-reviewed publication (e.g., journals and government reports such as those from the FDA or CDC).
      1. Contains references for sources cited
      1. Written by a professional or scholar in the field and indicates credentials of the author(s)
      1. Is no more than 5 years old for clinical or research article
   1. What is not considered a scholarly resource?
      1. Newspaper articles and layperson literature (e.g., Readers Digest, Healthy Life Magazine, Food, and Fitness)
      1. Information from Wikipedia or any wiki
      1. Textbooks
      1. Website homepages
      1. The weekly lesson
      1. Articles in healthcare and nursing-oriented trade magazines, such as Nursing Made Incredibly Easy and RNMagazine (Source: What is a scholarly article.docx; Created 06/09 CK/CL Revised: 02/17/11, 09/02/11 nlh/clm)
   1. Can the lesson for the week be used as a scholarly source?
      1. Information from the weekly lesson can be cited in a posting; however, it is not to be the sole source used in the post.
   1. Are resources provided from CU acceptable sources (e.g., the readings for the week)?
      1. Not as a sole source within the post. The textbook and/or assigned (required) articles for the week can be used, but another outside source must be cited for full credit. Textbooks are not considered scholarly sources for the purpose of discussions.
   1. Are websites acceptable as scholarly resources for discussions?
      1. Yes, if they are documents or data cited from credible websites. Credible websites usually end in .gov or .edu; however, some .org sites that belong to professional associations (e.g., American Heart Association, National League for Nursing, American Diabetes Association) are also considered credible websites. Websites ending with .com are not to be used as scholarly resources
4. Professionalism in Communication: The post presents information in logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, and is clearly relevant to the discussion topic. Grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate.
5. Wednesday Participation Requirement: The student provides a substantive response to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course faculty (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.
6. Total Participation Requirement: The student provides at least three substantive posts (one to the initial question or topic, one to a student peer, and one to a faculty question) on two different days during the week.

NR505 Week 6 Discussion: Impact of Research Ethics on Biomedical Studies Example

According to the resources I have obtained concerning the history of ethics in research, it is evident that ethics is not a new concept. As early as 1947, during World War II, the ethical issues surrounding human subjects made headlines. This followed the research conducted by Nazi doctors on prisoners of war (Bell & Wynn, 2020). Although the study provides important findings that contributed to the literature, the risks, including deaths that were encountered, were devastating.

An investigation into this issue led to the development of the Nuremberg Code, the first of many developments that contributed to the evolution of current research ethics (Bell & Wynn, 2020).  As stated in the Nuremberg Code, any research involving human subjects requires obtaining voluntary, informed consent, as well as the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence, and the formulation of a proper scientific protocol that benefits humans with minimal risks. Essentially, understanding this historical concept has significantly impacted my perspective on biomedical research.

From history, it is evident that ethics refers to the standards of conduct that should be followed when dealing with human subjects in research. I have learned the basic principles and research ethics that are key when dealing with humans. As dictated by ethics, human subjects must be respected and treated with justice while upholding the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence during the research process (Sutrop et al., 2020).

Part of the respect requires obtaining informed consent and maintaining confidentiality. While obtaining informed consent is a common practice in the medical field, it is vital in research. Ethics requires researchers to inform participants of all information regarding the research before participants decide to participate (Tambornino & Lanzerath, 2020). The information should include the reason for the research, its benefits, risks, and implications of participating in the particular research.

The participant must understand all the information and be allowed to ask questions or seek clarification as needed. The participant should then be allowed, in their right mind, to decide whether to accept or decline participation without any influence or threat.  However, a third party may be used to provide consent in the case of a child or older adult with mental issues, prohibiting them from making a decision (West-McGruer, 2020). This should be done on the basis that participation in that research will yield more benefits than risks.

Additionally, ensuring confidentiality is a key concern. Participants must be assured that their contributions, including personal information, will not be shared with any other person, except the researcher, unless the participant explicitly allows it. Practices to enhance confidentiality include maintaining anonymity, storing documents in locked cabinets, and encrypting computer-based files (Tambornino & Lanzerath, 2020).

Furthermore, the principles of justice, non-maleficence, and beneficence should be upheld by ensuring that researchers maximize benefits, reduce risks, and improve the patient’s overall well-being. Finally, participants should be allowed to withdraw from the research at any time without facing any consequences. Understanding all these concepts helped me to analyze ethical issues when reviewing literature for my PICOT question.

Since my project involves studies on human beings, I evaluated the concepts of ethics as applied in various studies. I was pleased because most of the studies followed the ethical requirements. These include ensuring confidentiality, obtaining verbal and written consent, allowing participants to withdraw, serving justice, and upholding the principles of beneficence and non-maleficence.

However, despite taking all measures to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of participants, some researchers collected personal information, such as demographics, or used unique identifiers and codes for participants. According to Sutrop et al. (2020), using codes or demographic features could impair confidentiality. Therefore, researchers should refrain from undertaking such activities; otherwise, they risk breaching confidentiality, which is an unethical act. 

References

Bell, K., & Wynn, L. L. (2020). Research ethics committees, ethnographers and imaginations of risk. Ethnography, 146613812098386. https://doi.org/10.1177/1466138120983862

Sutrop, M., Parder, M.-L., & Juurik, M. (2020). Research ethics codes and guidelines. In Handbook of Research Ethics and Scientific Integrity (pp. 67–89). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16759-2_2

Tambornino, L., & Lanzerath, D. (2020). COVID-19 human challenge trials – what research ethics committees need to consider. Research Ethics, 174701612094363. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016120943635

West-McGruer, K. (2020). There is ‘consent’ and then there is consent: Mobilising Māori and Indigenous research ethics to problematize the Western biomedical model. Journal of Sociology (Melbourne, Vic.), 56(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783319893523