Ethical Data Collection Optimization
Response to discussions
Discussion 1
The strategies employed to protect the wellbeing and security of participants under the FDA’s regulations are commendable. The approach used to select patients through electronic medical record databases minimizes the distortion of patient data. Providing informed consent to participants is vital, indicating respect and offering a comprehensive view of the research objective (Moser & Korstjens, 2018). The privacy approaches embraced by Dr. Weber, such as answering individual questions from participants, enhance their understanding of the concept of CRC screening.
The vetting process, including the documentation of retrospective chart review information in a password-protected Excel spreadsheet, ensures the selection of suitable candidates. The criteria used, including patient identifier, gender, age-range, and others, are commendable for their lenience, preventing duplication and skipping of information (Dressler et al., 2019). This method of classification allows for easy entry and comparison of data consistently, ensuring credibility and accuracy. The approval of the QI project by the IRB of South University demonstrates a commitment to minimizing risks to humans and enhancing ethical accountability.
Overall, the data collection is well-organized, including a file storing and naming system that facilitates collaboration among team members. The addition of dates and sources, along with notes, aids in the research process and ensures authenticity (Dressler et al., 2019). The data manipulation, allowing for the identification of correlations and systematic arrangement for creating tables, is critical for easy data analysis and drawing viable conclusions.
References
Dressler, A. M., Gillman, A. G., & Wasan, A. D. (2019). A narrative review of data collection and analysis guidelines for comparative effectiveness research in chronic pain using patient-reported outcomes and electronic health records. Journal of pain research, 12, 491.
Moser, A., & Korstjens, I. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 3: Sampling, data collection, and analysis. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 9-18.
Discussion 2
The information provided is valuable for health professionals and the general population seeking insight into CRC screening, its benefits, and risks (Beck, 2015). CRC being a leading cause of cancer-related death emphasizes the importance of proper measures to address this issue. Highlighting the potential risks of screening is essential for researchers to analyze possible solutions to these challenges. Given CRC’s adverse impacts, screening is crucial, especially at the local stages (Beck, 2015). Your mention of the risks, including false-negative test results, is vital, as it may impact individuals’ willingness to undergo screening in the future, posing health risks.
The reference materials are commendable for their currency and up-to-date information. The emphasis on risks like overdiagnosis, false negatives, and positives for CRC screening is crucial for cautioning health professionals (Hofmann, 2017). The warning about participants’ choice ensures they are fully informed about what screening entails, aiding them in managing expectations. The ethical challenges, including balancing harms and benefits, are credible, recognizing the potential biases in assessing outcomes for CRC screening strategies.
References
Beck, D. E. (2015). The importance of colorectal cancer screening.
Hofmann, B. (2017). Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening—a systematic review. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 23(3), 631–641. https://doiorg.su.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jep.12690