Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Publish and perish: a case study of publication ethics in a rural community
Contributor(s): Fraser, John  (author); Alexander, C (author)
Publication Date: 2006
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.014076
Handle Link:
Abstract: Background: Health researchers must weigh the benefits and risks of publishing their findings. Objective: To explore differences in decision making between rural health researchers and managers on the publication of research from small identifiable populations. Method: A survey that investigated the attitudes of Australian rural general practitioners (GPs) to nurse practitioners was explored. Decisions on the study's publication were analysed with bioethical principles and health service management ethical decision-making models. Results: Response rate was 78.5% (62/79 GPs). 84-94% of GP responders considered it to be undesirable for nurse practitioners to initiate referrals to medical specialists (n = 58), to initiate diagnostic imaging (n = 56) and to prescribe medication (n = 52). Bioethical analysis: It was concluded that the principle of beneficence outweighed the principle of non-maleficence and that a valid justification for the publication of these results existed. Decision-making models of health service managers: On the basis of models of ethical decision making in health service management, the decisions of the area's health managers resulted in approval to publish this project's results being denied. This was because the perceived risks to the health service outweighed benefits. Confidentiality could not be ensured by publication under a regional nom de plume. Conclusions: A conflict of interests between rural researchers and health managers on publication of results is shown by this case study. Researchers and managers at times owe competing duties to key stakeholders. Both weigh the estimated risks and benefits of the effect of research findings. This is particularly true in a rural area, where identification of the subjects becomes more likely.
Publication Type: Journal Article
Source of Publication: Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(9), p. 526-529
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd & Institute of Medical Ethics
Place of Publication: London
ISSN: 0306-6800
Field of Research (FOR): 190302 Professional Writing
111711 Health Information Systems (incl Surveillance)
160810 Urban Sociology and Community Studies
Peer Reviewed: Yes
HERDC Category Description: C1 Refereed Article in a Scholarly Journal
Other Links:
Statistics to Oct 2018: Visitors: 183
Views: 186
Downloads: 0
Appears in Collections:Journal Article
School of Rural Medicine

Files in This Item:
2 files
File Description SizeFormat 
Show full item record


checked on Nov 30, 2018

Page view(s)

checked on Feb 8, 2019
Google Media

Google ScholarTM



Items in Research UNE are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.