Ethics of research priority setting on substance use disorders: protocol for a systematic review

Résumé fourni par la source

Background Research priority setting (RPS) aims to direct research resources towards optimal social benefits. Research on substance use disorders (SUDs) due to the use of alcohol, tobacco or other psychoactive substances currently receives limited funding, making RPS particularly important. RPS are not just a technical exercise but also have ethical dimensions. However, there is no systematic review of ethics of RPS on SUDs. Objectives 1) To examine the extent to which recent RPS exercises on substance use disorders (SUDs) adhere to current reporting guidelines for RPS and 2) discuss our findings in light of the existing ethics literature on RPS and SUDs, and see to what extent ethical dimensions in the literature map onto current practice. Methods We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, screen reference lists and hand search websites from selected organisations (e.g., funders, professional societies) for RPS exercises on SUDs published between 2020 and 2025. Two review authors will independently screen records and extract data using a piloted data extraction form. Any discrepancy will be resolved through consensus with another author acting as an arbiter. To examine adherence to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we will map adherence to the 2019 REPRISE reporting checklist and the 2025 WHO guidelines on ethics of RPS (e.g., optimise social value, respect special obligations, assess risks, follow fair procedures). We will narratively synthesise data, providing descriptive statistics, where appropriate, and discuss our findings in light of relevant literature. Implications By describing and critically discussing the extent to which current RPS exercises on SUDs adhere to current reporting and ethical guidelines for RPS, we hope this systematic review will inform and strengthen future RPS exercises and help direct available resources to the most valuable research on SUDs.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.