Developing nursing research review systems

护理研究方法多种多样，包括定性研究方法和行动研究方法。这些都是自然科学领域的评论家所不熟悉的。然而，许多护理研究实际上是在卫生保健领域和自然科学家占主导地位的组织中进行审查的。最近，日本出台了各种伦理研究指南：2004年日本护理协会的《流行病学研究指南》、《临床研究指南》和《护理研究指南》。然而，在伦理研究的评估中，仍有一些问题尚未解决。本次调查向受试者发放了问卷，以确定日本护理研究审查制度存在的问题。研究对象为2006年在日本两次大型护理会议上发表研究性学习的1121人。调查问卷邮寄给了1121名调查对象中的965名，这些人的地址是通过互联网调查确定的。治愈率43.3%(418例)。%的研究是从研究伦理评审委员会进行评审的，对本次调查的分析表明，评审一个月以上的时间较长、制度不便、评价不公平、缺乏合格的评审人员等几个重要问题。有人指出，评审委员会应包括护理研究的专家。另一方面，一篇文章指出了对与社会科学研究相关的风险的监督。要解决这些问题，需要：1)所有卫生保健领域的研究都应该有一个明确的指导方针，供申请者和评审者使用；2)对于不同意研究伦理审查委员会的结果的人，建立面对面的会议制度。

The methods of nursing researches are various, including qualitative and action research methods. These are not familiar with the reviewers from the field of the nature sciences. However, many of nursing researches are actually reviewed in the health care field and organizations where nature scientists are dominant. Recently, various research guidelines for ethical research were available in Japan : Guideline for Epidemiological Research, Guideline for Clinical Research and Nursing Research from Japanese Nursing Association in 2004. However, some issues remain unsolved in the evaluation of ethical researches.In this survey, questionnaires were sent to the subjects to identify the issues of nursing research reviewing systems in Japan. 1121 persons, who presented research study in two major nursing conferences in Japan in 2006, were chosen as subjects. Questionnaires were mailed to 965 out of 1121 subjects whose addresses were identified through internet investigation. Returned rate was 43.3 %( 418). 64% of subjects' researches were reviewed from the research ethics review board.Analysis of this survey showed the several important issues such as taking a long time for reviewing more than one month, inconvenience of the system, unfairness of the evaluation, and shortage of eligible reviewers. Some pointed out that experts of nursing researches should be included in the reviewing committee. On the other hand, oversight the risks associated with social scientific research was pointed out in an article. To resolve these issues, required are as follows ; 1) a clear guideline for all research studies in health care fields should be available for both applicants and reviewers, and 2) establishing in-person meeting system for who disagree with the result from research ethics review board.