Given the increasing trend in suicide mortality and its burden on individuals, families and communities, ethically sound research is crucial to improve the prevention of suicidal behaviour. However, few studies have looked at the experiences of researchers in obtaining ethics approval for their studies. This study addressed this gap by investigating researchers’ experiences in obtaining ethics approval and how they dealt with the concerns raised by ethics committees. Respondents were recruited from September to November 2018 through the Australian Suicide Prevention Research Leaders Network, and 33 respondents (35%) completed the study survey, comprising forced-choice and open-ended questions. Respondents most commonly reported concerns from ethics committees regarding potential harm to participants and researchers’ responsibilities to participants within the context of intervention and evaluation studies. Most researchers modified their ethics application and/or consulted with their ethics committee to reply to the concerns raised. Most respondents perceived the impact of the modification as positive or neutral. The study concludes that researchers may anticipate potential concerns of ethics committees. Improved understanding of how ethics committees work and dialogue between researchers and ethics committees should sustain the quality in suicide-related research.

Researchers and research ethics committees share a common goal of conducting ethically sound research. However, little is known of researchers’ experiences in obtaining ethics approval for suicide-related studies. This study aimed to investigate what concerns researchers have received on suicide-related ethics applications and how they dealt with it. Thirty-four respondents, recruited through the International Association for Suicide Prevention, filled out an online survey. The study found that researchers have received important concerns regarding potential harm and researchers’ responsibilities to participants. Researchers modified their application and/or consulted their research ethics committee in response to the concerns, which had a positive/neutral impact on their given study. Anticipating concerns and improved collaboration between researchers and research ethics committees should protect the quality of suicide prevention research.

Background Suicide research aims to contribute to a better understanding of suicidal behaviour and its prevention. However, there are many ethical challenges in this research field, for example, regarding consent and potential risks to participants. While studies to-date have focused on the perspective of the researchers, this study aimed to investigate the views and experiences of members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) in dealing with suicide-related study applications. Methods This qualitative study entailed a thematic analysis using an inductive approach. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample (N = 15) of HREC Chairs or their delegates from Australian research-intensive universities. The interview guide included questions regarding the ethical concerns and challenges in suicide-related research raised by HREC members, how they dealt with those challenges and what advice they could give to researchers. Results The analysis identified four main themes: (1) HREC members’ experiences of reviewing suicide-related study applications, (2) HREC members’ perceptions of suicide, suicide research, and study participants, (3) Complexity in HREC members’ decision-making processes, and (4) HREC members’ relationships with researchers. Conclusions Reliance on ethical guidelines and dialogue with researchers are crucial in the assessment of suicide-related study applications. Both researchers and HREC members may benefit from guidance and resources on how to conduct ethically sound suicide-related studies. Developing working relationships will be likely to help HRECs to facilitate high quality, ethical suicide-related research and researchers to conduct such research.

Accurate news media reporting of scientific research is important as most people receive their health information from the media and inaccuracies in media reporting can have adverse health outcomes. We completed a quantitative and qualitative analysis of a journal article, the corresponding press release and the online news reporting of a scientific study. Four themes were identified in the press release that were directly translated to the news reports that contributed to inaccuracies: sensationalism, misrepresentation, clinical recommendations and subjectivity. The pressures on journalists, scientists and their institutions has led to a mutually beneficial relationship between these actors that can prioritise newsworthiness ahead of scientific integrity to the detriment of public health.

No abstract