Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

uu.sePublications from Uppsala University
Change search
Link to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Eriksson, Stefan, DocentORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-7486-4678
Publications (10 of 119) Show all publications
Godskesen, T., Vie, K. J., Bülow, W., Holmberg, B., Helgesson, G. & Eriksson, S. (2023). How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?. Learned Publishing, 36(4), 554-563
Open this publication in new window or tab >>How do journals publishing palliative and end‐of‐life care research report ethical approval and informed consent?
Show others...
2023 (English)In: Learned Publishing, ISSN 0953-1513, E-ISSN 1741-4857, Vol. 36, no 4, p. 554-563Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

This study explores how papers published in international journals in palliative and end-of-life care report ethical approval and informed consent. A literature search following PRISMA guidelines was conducted in PubMed, the Web of Science Core Collection, Scopus, the ProQuest Social Science Premium Collection, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL). A total of169 empirical studies from 101 journals were deductively coded and analysed. The results showed that 5% of publications provided no information on ethical approval, 12% reported minimal information, 56% reported rudimentary information, and 27% reported comprehensive details. We also found that 13% did not report any information on informed consent, 17% reported minimal information, 50% reported rudimentary information, and 19% reported comprehensive details. The prevalence of missing and incomplete ethical statements and inadequate reporting of informed consent processes in recent publications raises concerns and highlights the need for improvement. We suggest that journals advocate high reporting standards and potentially reject papers that do not meet  ethical  requirements,  as  this is the quickest path to improvement.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2023
National Category
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-511260 (URN)10.1002/leap.1580 (DOI)001060429400001 ()
Funder
Uppsala UniversitySwedish Research Council, 2021-02827
Available from: 2023-09-11 Created: 2023-09-11 Last updated: 2024-01-26Bibliographically approved
Godskesen, T., Frygner Holm, S., Höglund, A. T. & Eriksson, S. (2023). YouTube as a source of information on clinical trials for paediatric cancer. Information, Communication and Society, 26(4), 716-729
Open this publication in new window or tab >>YouTube as a source of information on clinical trials for paediatric cancer
2023 (English)In: Information, Communication and Society, ISSN 1369-118X, E-ISSN 1468-4462, Vol. 26, no 4, p. 716-729Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Little is known about the information parents of children with cancer find when searching for clinical trials information on YouTube. Thus, this study aimed to analyse the content, quality and reliability of YouTube videos focused on clinical trials for paediatric cancer. A descriptive cross-sectional design was used, and YouTube was searched using the phrases ‘clinical trials for children with cancer’ and ‘paediatric cancer clinical trials’. Videos that met inclusion criteria were assessed using the instruments Global Quality Scale and DISCERN. About half of the examined videos were in the GQS excellent-quality group and exhibited a total of 84,804 views. The mean time for videos was 5.7 minutes, they originated from the US or UK, were uploaded after 2016, and had a cancer centre/foundation or children hospital as video source. Half of them were focusing on early experimental trials and had a positive tone. Twenty percent were classified as useful without serious shortcomings, almost 50% as misleading with serious shortcomings, and 30% as inappropriate sources of information. In conclusion, most YouTube videos on paediatric cancer trials are not very informative and fall short of what could ethically be required regarding their facilitation of informed decision-making.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Taylor & Francis, 2023
Keywords
YouTube; social media; clinical trials; paediatric cancer; e-learning
National Category
Medical Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-453112 (URN)10.1080/1369118X.2021.1974515 (DOI)000693941300001 ()
Available from: 2021-09-14 Created: 2021-09-14 Last updated: 2023-05-22Bibliographically approved
Ancillotti, M., Nihlén Fahlquist, J. & Eriksson, S. (2022). Individual moral responsibility for antibiotic resistance. Bioethics, 36(1), 3-9
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Individual moral responsibility for antibiotic resistance
2022 (English)In: Bioethics, ISSN 0269-9702, E-ISSN 1467-8519, Vol. 36, no 1, p. 3-9Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Antibiotic resistance (AR) is a major threat to public health and healthcare worldwide. In this article, we analyse and discuss the claim that taking actions to minimize AR is everyone's responsibility, focusing on individual moral responsibility. This should not be merely interpreted as a function of knowledge of AR and the proper use of antibiotics. Instead, we suggest a circumstantial account of individual responsibility for AR, where individuals do or do not engage in judicious antibiotic behaviour with different degrees of voluntariness. Furthermore, we suggest a notion of responsibility as a virtue, in which individuals have the opportunity to develop a sensitivity towards the AR theme and, consequently, are capable of engaging, actively and voluntarily, in judicious antibiotic behaviour. The development of such sensitivity depends on the creation of adequate circumstances, that is individual capacities and availability of resources.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2022
Keywords
Antibiotic resistance, individual responsibility, moral responsibility, virtue ethics, responsibility as virtue
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-432509 (URN)10.1111/bioe.12958 (DOI)000702758800001 ()
Available from: 2021-01-20 Created: 2021-01-20 Last updated: 2023-01-11Bibliographically approved
Elliott, T., Fazeen, B., Asrat, A., Cetto, A. M., Eriksson, S., Looi, L. M. & Negra, D. (2022). Perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences: A global survey of researchers. Learned Publishing, 35(4), 516-528
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences: A global survey of researchers
Show others...
2022 (English)In: Learned Publishing, ISSN 0953-1513, E-ISSN 1741-4857, Vol. 35, no 4, p. 516-528Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

A global survey of researchers was conducted to gather perceptions on the prevalence and impact of predatory academic journals and conferences. The survey was open and inclusive in nature, with 1872 researchers, from a wide array of geographic regions, disciplines and academic career stages, voluntarily participating. Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected and analysed. The survey revealed that over 80% (1537 of 1859) of respondents perceive predatory practices are already a serious problem or on the rise in their country of work, and risk infiltrating and undermining the research enterprise if left unchallenged. At least 24% (445 of 1872) of respondents admitted they had already published in a predatory journal, participated in a predatory conference, or did not know if they had. Over 87% of respondents who had published (174 of 199) or participated (60 of 64) indicated that a lack of awareness of predatory practices was the main reason. Those in lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries were more likely to indicate they had engaged in these activities than those in high-income ones, with some disciplines appearing to engage more than others. Individual impact was mixed: some indicated no impact while others noted a range of negative and detrimental feelings.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
John Wiley & Sons, 2022
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-490167 (URN)10.1002/leap.1458 (DOI)000811162700001 ()
Available from: 2022-12-07 Created: 2022-12-07 Last updated: 2023-01-25Bibliographically approved
Godskesen, T., Eriksson, S., Oermann, M. O. & Gabrielsson, S. (2022). Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review. BMJ Open, 12(11), Article ID e062425.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Predatory conferences: a systematic scoping review
2022 (English)In: BMJ Open, E-ISSN 2044-6055, Vol. 12, no 11, article id e062425Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

OBJECTIVE: To systematically map the scholarly literature on predatory conferences and describe the presentstate of research and the prevalent attitudes about these conferences.

METHODS: This scoping review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Four databases were searched (PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and ProQuest SocialSciences Premium Collection). In addition, the included studies’ reference lists were scanned for additional papers  not found in the searches. Peer-reviewed publications were included irrespective of study design. Letters and commentary were included if they were peer reviewed. Editorials and literature reviews were excluded.

RESULTS: From 809 initial publications, 20 papers were included in the review, from 12 countries and covered a wide range of science disciplines, from nursing/medicine to energy/technology and computer science. More than half were empirical and published after 2017. In most papers, a definition of the term predatory conferences was put forward. Spam email invitations with flattering language were the most common characteristics, and the conferences were often hosted by unknown organisations that used copied pictures without permission. High fees, lack of peer review, and a multidisciplinary scope were signal features. All papers explicitly or implicitly suggested possible reasons for participating in predatory conferences. Some reasons were related to the overall context of academic work, the nature of predatory conferences (eg, researchers falling prey to misleading information about a conference or choosing a conference based on an attractive location) and the personal characteristics of researchers. Only one paper reported empirically identified reasons for participating in predatory conferences. The three countermeasures proposed most frequently to deal with predatory conferences were increasing education, emphasising responsibilities of universities and funders, and publishing lists of predatory publishers associated with conferences.

CONCLUSIONS: This review identified a scarcity of research concerning predatory conferences. Future empirical as well as fully analytical research should be encouraged by funders, journals and research institutions.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2022
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-489757 (URN)10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062425 (DOI)000924552900004 ()36450423 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2022-12-04 Created: 2022-12-04 Last updated: 2023-08-28Bibliographically approved
Ancillotti, M., Eriksson, S., Godskesen, T., Andersson, D. I. & Nihlén Fahlquist, J. (2021). An Effort Worth Making: A Qualitative Study of How Swedes Respond to Antibiotic Resistance. Public Health Ethics, 14(1), 1-11, Article ID phaa033.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>An Effort Worth Making: A Qualitative Study of How Swedes Respond to Antibiotic Resistance
Show others...
2021 (English)In: Public Health Ethics, ISSN 1754-9973, E-ISSN 1754-9981, Vol. 14, no 1, p. 1-11, article id phaa033Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Due to the alarming rise of antibiotic resistance, medically unwarranted use of antibiotics has assumed new moral significance. In this paper, a thematic content analysis of focus group discussions was conducted to explore lay people’s views on the moral challenges posed by antibiotic resistance. The most important finding is that lay people are morally sensitive to the problems entailed by antibiotic resistance. Participants saw the decreasing availability of effective antibiotics as a problem of justice. This involves individual as well as collective moral responsibility. Yet, holding agents responsible for their use of antibiotics involves varying degrees of demandingness. In our discussion, these findings are related to the contemporary ethical debate on antibiotic resistance and two proposals for the preservation of antibiotic effectiveness are compared to and evaluated against participants’ views.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University PressOxford University Press (OUP), 2021
Keywords
Antibiotic resistance, responsibility, demandingness, justice
National Category
Ethics Medical Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-428884 (URN)10.1093/phe/phaa033 (DOI)000674745300001 ()34234840 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2020-12-17 Created: 2020-12-17 Last updated: 2024-01-15Bibliographically approved
Garbrielsson, S., Eriksson, S. & Godskesen, T. (2021). Predatory nursing journals: A case study of author prevalence and characteristics. Nursing Ethics, 28(5), 823-833
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Predatory nursing journals: A case study of author prevalence and characteristics
2021 (English)In: Nursing Ethics, ISSN 0969-7330, E-ISSN 1477-0989, Vol. 28, no 5, p. 823-833Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background: Predatory publishing poses a fundamental threat to the development of nursing knowledge. Previous research has suggested that authors of papers published in predatory journals are mainly inexperienced researchers from low- and middle-income countries. Less attention has been paid to contributors from high-income countries.

Aim: To describe the prevalence and characteristics of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals.

Design: Quantitative descriptive case study.

Participants and research context: Descriptive statistics were used to analyse the academic positions and academic affiliations of the authors of 39 papers published in predatory nursing journals during 2018 and 2019. Predatory nursing journals with Swedish contributors were identified by searching public listings of papers and applying a set of criteria. Journal site archives were used to identify additional papers with Swedish authors.

Ethical considerations: This study was conducted in accordance with national regulations and ethical principles of research.

Results: Almost two-thirds of Swedish authors publishing in predatory nursing journals hold senior academic positions. A small group of higher education institutions account for a majority of academic affiliations. Findings suggest that higher education institutions and experienced nursing researchers from Sweden make substantial contributions to predatory nursing journals, but that predatory publication habits might be concentrated in a limited number of academics and research milieus. A year-to-year comparison indicates that the prevalence of publishing in predatory journals might be diminishing.

Discussion: Swedish nurse researchers help legitimize predatory journals, thus jeopardizing the trustworthiness of academic nursing knowledge. Substandard papers in predatory journals may pass as legitimate and be used to further academic careers. Experienced researchers are misleading junior colleagues, as joint publications might become embarrassments and liabilities.

Conclusion: While the academic nursing community needs to address the problem of predatory publishing, there is some hope that educational efforts might have an effect on combating predatory publishing in nursing.

Keywords
Academic publishing, Predatory journals, Publication ethics, Research dissemination
National Category
Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-427263 (URN)10.1177/0969733020968215 (DOI)000621155200001 ()33267732 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2020-12-04 Created: 2020-12-04 Last updated: 2021-10-05Bibliographically approved
Bülow, W., Godskesen, T., Helgesson, G. & Eriksson, S. (2021). Why unethical papers should be retracted. Journal of Medical Ethics, 47(12), Article ID e32.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Why unethical papers should be retracted
2021 (English)In: Journal of Medical Ethics, ISSN 0306-6800, E-ISSN 1473-4257, Vol. 47, no 12, article id e32Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

The purpose of retracting published papers is to maintain the integrity of academic research. Recent work in research ethics has devoted important attention to how to improve the system of paper retraction. In this context, the focus has primarily been on how to handle fraudulent or flawed research papers, and how to encourage the retraction of papers based on honest mistakes. Less attention has been paid to whether papers that report unethical research – for example, research performed without appropriate concern for the moral rights and interests of the research participants – should be retracted. The aim of this paper is to examine to what extent retraction policies of academic journals and publishers address retractions of unethical research and to discuss critically various policy options and the reasons for accepting them. This paper starts by reviewing retraction policies of academic publishers. The results show that many journals do not have explicit policies for how to handle unethical research. Against this background, we discuss four normative arguments for why unethical research should be retracted. In conclusion, we suggest a retraction policy in light of our empirical and normative investigations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, 2021
Keywords
paper retractions, publication ethics, research ethics, unethical research, dra tillbaka artiklar, publiceringsetik, forskningsetik, oetisk forskning
National Category
Ethics
Research subject
Bioethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-417171 (URN)10.1136/medethics-2020-106140 (DOI)000726966400031 ()32792346 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2020-08-14 Created: 2020-08-14 Last updated: 2024-01-15Bibliographically approved
Engelbak Nielsen, Z., Eriksson, S., Schram Harsløf, L. B., Petri, S., Helgesson, G., Mangset, M. & Godskesen, T. (2020). Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials?: A mixed methods study. BMC Cancer, 20(1), Article ID 401.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Are cancer patients better off if they participate in clinical trials?: A mixed methods study
Show others...
2020 (English)In: BMC Cancer, ISSN 1471-2407, E-ISSN 1471-2407, Vol. 20, no 1, article id 401Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Background

Research and cancer care are closely intertwined; however, it is not clear whether physicians and nurses believe that clinical trials offer the best treatment for patients and, if so, whether this belief is justified. The aim of this study was therefore: (i) to explore how physicians and nurses perceive the benefits of clinical trial participation compared with standard care and (ii) whether it is justified to claim that clinical trial participation improves outcomes for cancer patients.

Methods

A mixed methods approach was used employing semi-structured interviews with 57 physicians and nurses in oncology and haematology and a literature review of the evidence for trial superiority, i.e. the idea that receiving treatment in a clinical trial leads to a better outcome compared with standard care. Inductive thematic analysis was used to examine the interview data. A literature review comprising nine articles was conducted according to a conceptual framework developed by Peppercorn et al. and evaluated recent evidence on trial superiority.

Results

Our findings show that many physicians and nurses make claims supporting trial superiority, however very little evidence is available in the literature comparing outcomes for trial participants and non-participants that supports their assertions.

Conclusions

Despite the recent rapid development and use of targeted therapy and immunotherapy, we find no support for trial participation to provide better outcomes for cancer patients than standard care. Hence, our present results are in line with previous results from Peppercorn et al. A weaker version of the superiority claim is that even if a trial does not bring about a direct positive effect, it brings about indirect positive effects. However, as the value of such indirect effects is dependent on the individual’s specific circumstances and preferences, their existence cannot establish the general claim that treatment in trials is superior. Belief in trial superiority is therefore unfounded. Hence, if such beliefs are communicated to patients in a trial recruitment context, it would provide misleading information. Instead emphasis should be on patients volunteering to give an altruistic contribution to the furthering of knowledge and to the potential benefit of future patients.

Keywords
Pharmacological clinical trials, Physicians, Nurses, Neoplasms, Outcomes, Survival, Mixed methods, Qualitative, Literature review
National Category
Cancer and Oncology Medical Ethics
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-410174 (URN)10.1186/s12885-020-06916-z (DOI)000533883600002 ()32384883 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2020-05-09 Created: 2020-05-09 Last updated: 2020-06-18Bibliographically approved
Ancillotti, M., Eriksson, S., Andersson, D. I., Godskesen, T., Nihlén Fahlquist, J. & Veldwijk, J. (2020). Preferences regarding antibiotic treatment and the role of antibiotic resistance: a discrete choice experiment. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, 56(6), Article ID 106198.
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Preferences regarding antibiotic treatment and the role of antibiotic resistance: a discrete choice experiment
Show others...
2020 (English)In: International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, ISSN 0924-8579, E-ISSN 1872-7913, Vol. 56, no 6, article id 106198Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Objectives: To identify preferences of the Swedish public regarding antibiotic treatment characteristics and the relative weight of antibiotic resistance in their treatment choices.

Methods: A questionnaire including a discrete choice experiment questionnaire was answered by 378 Swedish participants. Preferences of the general public regarding five treatment characteristics (attributes) were measured: contribution to antibiotic resistance, cost, side effects, failure rate and treatment duration. Latent class analysis models were used to determine attribute-level estimates and heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attributes and willingness to pay for antibiotics with a lower contribution to antibiotic resistance were calculated from the estimates.

Results: All attributes influenced participants’ preferences for antibiotic treatment. For the majority of participants, contribution to antibiotic resistance was the most important attribute. Younger respondents found contribution to antibiotic resistance more important in their choice of antibiotic treatments. Choices of respondents with lower numeracy, higher health literacy and higher financial vulnerability were influenced more by the cost of the antibiotic treatment. Older respondents with lower financial vulnerability and health literacy, and higher numeracy found side effects to be most important.

Conclusions: All attributes can be considered as potential drivers of antibiotic use by lay people. Findings also suggest that the behaviour of lay people may be influenced by concerns over the rise of antibiotic resistance. Therefore, stressing individual responsibility for antibiotic resistance in clinical and societal communication has the potential to affect personal decision making.

Keywords
Antibiotic resistance, Discrete choice experiment, Preferences, Communication, Behaviour, Sweden
National Category
Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Research subject
Health Care Research; Social Pharmacy; Social Medicine
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-425711 (URN)10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106198 (DOI)000596387600014 ()33080314 (PubMedID)
Available from: 2020-11-18 Created: 2020-11-18 Last updated: 2021-01-27Bibliographically approved
Organisations
Identifiers
ORCID iD: ORCID iD iconorcid.org/0000-0001-7486-4678

Search in DiVA

Show all publications