Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Eaton KA, de Vries J, Widström E, Gait TC, Bedi R, Meyers I, et al.
    Eur J Dent Educ, 2006 Nov;10(4):186-91.
    PMID: 17038009
    During the 2004 annual meeting of the International Association for Dental Research, the Education Research Group held a symposium on dental outreach teaching. After a brief introduction, which reviews relevant aspects of the relatively sparse literature, this paper summarises the proceedings, the themes and conclusions that emerged and the research issues that were identified. It aims to describe aspects of current practice around the world and to promote future discussion. Presenters gave details of outreach programmes for dental undergraduates in Australia, Finland, Malaysia (and Southeast Asia), the United Kingdom and the United States. From these presentations four themes emerged. They were: reasons for the introduction of outreach teaching, its perceived beneficial effects, organisational issues, educational issues. The reasons included a recognition of the need to educate dental undergraduates as members of 'care teams' in the environments and communities where they were ultimately like to work and the current shortage of both suitable patients and teachers (faculty) in many dental schools. A wide range of potential benefits and some disadvantages were identified. The organisational issues were, in the main, seen to relate to finance and administration. The educational issues included the need to train and monitor the performance of teachers at outreach clinics and to assess the performance of the undergraduates whilst at the outreach locations. It was concluded that new technology made it easier to teach at a distance and it was possible to create a dental 'school without walls'. It was recognised that few evaluations of dental outreach teaching have been carried out and that there were many research questions to be answered, including: whether it should be a voluntary or compulsory part of the undergraduate curriculum, how long it should last and what type of outcomes should be assessed.
  2. Wright K, Ali J, Atuire C, Cheah PY, Chiumento A, Ferretti A, et al.
    Res Ethics, 2026 Jan;22(1):168-183.
    PMID: 42454216 DOI: 10.1177/17470161251346253
    As the scope of morally relevant considerations widens and new challenges emerge at the frontiers of health innovation, there are questions about the appropriate role and remit for research ethics review, within the broader context of the whole health research ecosystem. Drawing on discussion at a satellite meeting at the 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research in Cape Town, we argue that the ethical conduct of research is the responsibility of all stakeholders in the research ecosystem - from funders, governments and research institutions to individual research teams and ethics committees. As a research community we need to espouse, and take action to achieve, more distributed approaches to ethical scrutiny and reflexivity. A crucial element of such a shift should be the development of collaborative and non-adversarial relationships between researchers and ethics committees that recognise and respect the mutual responsibilities of all parties to promote ethical research conduct. In tandem with the development of systems to support the exercise of ethical responsibilities across the research ecosystem, committees need to reconceptualise their role, in partnership with communities, as one of providing accountability through a focus on how research promotes participant agency and the common good.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links