Perspectives of Resident and Attending Ophthalmologists on Common Ethical Dilemmas in Research

Abstract

Abstract Purpose To assess how resident and attending ophthalmologists perceive and evaluate ethically controversial scenarios regarding mentorship, authorship, and ethics compliance that may occur during research involving residents. Methods An online survey was developed and contained 14 controversial vignettes based on common research scenarios that can occur when conducting research with trainees. The scenarios were designed to capture issues regarding three themes: mentorship, authorship, and compliance with ethical guidelines. Resident and attending ophthalmologists at eight military and civilian academic residency programs in the United States were invited to participate. Respondents used a Likert scale to assess the ethicality of the situations in addition to self-reported demographic characteristics. Results The response rate was 35.6% (77/216), consisting of 37.7% (n = 29) residents and 62.3% (n = 48) attendings. More attending ophthalmologists responded than residents (p = 0.004). Many respondents identified controversies around compliance (67.3%) and authorship (57.1%) as unethical, whereas situations regarding mentorship were largely viewed as neutral to ethical (68.0%). Responses to two scenarios, one regarding mentorship and one regarding authorship, significantly differed between residents and attendings (p = 0.001 and p = 0.022, respectively). Conclusion Academic ophthalmologists' perceptions of the ethicality of common research scenarios varied. There is a need for more prescriptive guidelines for authorship and mentorship ethics at all training levels to ensure consistency, fairness, and integrity of research.