Perspectives of Resident and Attending Ophthalmologists on Common Ethical Dilemmas in Research

Sarah C. Miller; Brittany C. Tsou; Michael J. Fliotsos; Gary L. Legault; Jiangxia Wang; Todd J. Mondzelewski; Patrick D. Munson; Alice Lorch; Laura K. Green; Won I. Kim; Ron W. Pelton; Fasika A. Woreta; Grant A. Justin

doi:10.1055/s-0043-1774394

Journal of Academic Ophthalmology, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Academic Ophthalmology 2023; 15(02): e237-e242
DOI: 10.1055/s-0043-1774394

Research Article

Perspectives of Resident and Attending Ophthalmologists on Common Ethical Dilemmas in Research

Sarah C. Miller ^*

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

,

Brittany C. Tsou^*⁺

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

,

Michael J. Fliotsos

²Department of Ophthalmology, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut

,

Gary L. Legault

³Department of Ophthalmology, San Antonio Military Medical Center, San Antonio, Texas

⁴Department of Surgery, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland

,

Jiangxia Wang

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

⁵Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland

,

Todd J. Mondzelewski

⁶Department of Ophthalmology, Balboa Naval Hospital, San Diego, California

,

Patrick D. Munson

⁷Department of Ophthalmology, Madigan Army Medical Center, Base Lewis-McChord, Washington

,

Alice Lorch

⁸Department of Ophthalmology, Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts

,

Laura K. Green

⁹Department of Ophthalmology, Krieger Eye Institute, Sinai Hospital of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland

,

Won I. Kim

¹⁰Department of Ophthalmology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland

,

Ron W. Pelton

¹¹Oculo-Facial Cosmetic and Reconstructive Surgery, Colorado Springs, Colorado

,

Fasika A. Woreta

¹Department of Ophthalmology, Wilmer Eye Institute, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland

,

Grant A. Justin

¹⁰Department of Ophthalmology, Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, Bethesda, Maryland

¹²Department of Vitreoretinal Surgery, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

Purpose To assess how resident and attending ophthalmologists perceive and evaluate ethically controversial scenarios regarding mentorship, authorship, and ethics compliance that may occur during research involving residents.

Methods An online survey was developed and contained 14 controversial vignettes based on common research scenarios that can occur when conducting research with trainees. The scenarios were designed to capture issues regarding three themes: mentorship, authorship, and compliance with ethical guidelines. Resident and attending ophthalmologists at eight military and civilian academic residency programs in the United States were invited to participate. Respondents used a Likert scale to assess the ethicality of the situations in addition to self-reported demographic characteristics.

Results The response rate was 35.6% (77/216), consisting of 37.7% (n = 29) residents and 62.3% (n = 48) attendings. More attending ophthalmologists responded than residents (p = 0.004). Many respondents identified controversies around compliance (67.3%) and authorship (57.1%) as unethical, whereas situations regarding mentorship were largely viewed as neutral to ethical (68.0%). Responses to two scenarios, one regarding mentorship and one regarding authorship, significantly differed between residents and attendings (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively).

Conclusion Academic ophthalmologists' perceptions of the ethicality of common research scenarios varied. There is a need for more prescriptive guidelines for authorship and mentorship ethics at all training levels to ensure consistency, fairness, and integrity of research.

Keywords

ophthalmology - academic ophthalmology - research - ethics - residency - ophthalmology residency - authorship

Full Text

References

References
1 ACGME. Common Program Requirements (Residency). ACGME. Published February 3, 2020 . Accessed August 23, 2023 at: https://www.acgme.org/globalassets/pfassets/programrequirements/240_ophthalmology_2023.pdf
2 ACGME. Program requirements and FAQs and applications. Accessed March 3, 2022 at: https://acgme.org/specialties/ophthalmology/program-requirements-and-faqs-and-applications/
3 NIH. Ethics training home page - office of intramural training & education at the National Institutes of Health. Accessed March 3, 2022 at: https://www.training.nih.gov/ethics_training_home_page
4 CITI. Research, ethics, and compliance training / CITI Program. Accessed March 21, 2022 at: https://about.citiprogram.org/
5 Fanelli D. How many scientists fabricate and falsify research? A systematic review and meta-analysis of survey data. PLoS One 2009; 4 (05) e5738
6 Marušić A, Bošnjak L, Jerončić A. A systematic review of research on the meaning, ethics and practices of authorship across scholarly disciplines. PLoS One 2011; 6 (09) e23477
7 Flanagin A, Carey LA, Fontanarosa PB. et al. Prevalence of articles with honorary authors and ghost authors in peer-reviewed medical journals. JAMA 1998; 280 (03) 222-224
8 Justin GA, Miller SC, Tsou B. et al. Ghost and honorary authorship in ophthalmology: a cross-sectional survey. Am J Ophthalmol 2022; 240: 67-78
9 Bennett DM, Taylor DM. Unethical practices in authorship of scientific papers. Emerg Med (Fremantle) 2003; 15 (03) 263-270
10 Cochran A, Elder WB, Neumayer LA. Characteristics of effective mentorship for academic surgeons: a grounded theory model. Ann Surg 2019; 269 (02) 269-274
11 Steiner JF, Curtis P, Lanphear BP, Vu KO, Main DS. Assessing the role of influential mentors in the research development of primary care fellows. Acad Med 2004; 79 (09) 865-872
12 Chopra V, Edelson DP, Saint S. A PIECE OF MY MIND. Mentorship malpractice. JAMA 2016; 315 (14) 1453-1454
13 Enfield KB, Truwit JD. The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: balancing priorities. Respir Care 2008; 53 (10) 1330-1336
14 Lee SSJ, Kelley M, Cho MK. et al. Adrift in the gray zone: IRB perspectives on research in the learning health system. AJOB Empir Bioeth 2016; 7 (02) 125-134
15 Khoo CY. Ethical issues in ophthalmology and vision research. Ann Acad Med Singap 2006; 35 (07) 512-516
16 Ateudjieu J, Hurst S, Yakum MN, Tangwa GB. Biomedical research ethics in Cameroon: a survey to assess training needs of medical residents and students. BMC Med Educ 2019; 19 (01) 5
17 Viswanath B, Jayarajan RN, Chandra PS, Chaturvedi SK. Supplementing research ethics training in psychiatry residents: a five-tier approach. Asian J Psychiatr 2018; 34: 54-56
18 Burgess A, van Diggele C, Mellis C. Mentorship in the health professions: a review. Clin Teach 2018; 15 (03) 197-202
19 Swazey JP, Anderson MS, Lewis KS, Louis KS. Ethical problems in academic research. Am Sci 1993; 81 (06) 542-553
20 Haven TL, Tijdink JK, Pasman HR, Widdershoven G, Ter Riet G, Bouter LM. Researchers' perceptions of research misbehaviours: a mixed methods study among academic researchers in Amsterdam. Res Integr Peer Rev 2019; 4: 25
21 Kumar V D. Academic nepotism - all that glitters is not gold. J Adv Med Educ Prof 2018; 6 (04) 186-187
22 Grilli J, Allesina S. Last name analysis of mobility, gender imbalance, and nepotism across academic systems. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017; 114 (29) 7600-7605
23 Nassrallah G, Arora S, Kulkarni S, Hutnik CML. Perspective on a formal mentorship program in ophthalmology residency. Can J Ophthalmol 2017; 52 (04) 321-322
24 Valji K. IRB approval–who needs it?. J Vasc Interv Radiol 2002; 13 (03) 225-226
25 Collen K, Datla D, Gardner SL, Manus P, Spierling K, Jones J. Retrospective chart reviews: assessing delays in IRB approval. Am J Emerg Med 2019; 37 (05) 991-992

Supplementary Material

Supplementary Material