Ethical considerations related to drone use for environment and health research: A scoping review protocol

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Introduction

The use of drones in environment and health research is a relatively new phenomenon. A principal research activity drones are used for is environmental monitoring, which can raise concerns in local communities. Existing ethical guidance for researchers is often not specific to drone technology and practices vary between research settings. Therefore, this scoping review aims to gather the evidence available on ethical considerations surrounding drone use as perceived by local communities, ethical considerations reported on by researchers implementing drone research, and published ethical guidance related to drone deployment.

Methods and analysis

This scoping review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. The literature search will be conducted using academic databases and grey literature sources. After pilot testing the inclusion criteria and data extraction tool, two researchers will double-screen and then chart available evidence independently. A content analysis will be carried out to identify patterns of categories or terms used to describe ethical considerations related to drone usage for environmental monitoring in the literature using the R Package RQDA. Discrepancies in any phase of the project will be solved through consensus between the two reviewers. If consensus cannot be reached, a third arbitrator will be consulted.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval is not required; only secondary data will be used. This protocol is registered on the Open Science Framework ( osf.io/a78et). The results will be disseminated through publication in a scientific journal and will be used to inform drone field campaigns in the Wellcome Trust funded HARMONIZE project. HARMONIZE aims to develop cost-effective and reproducible digital infrastructure for stakeholders in climate change hotspots in Latin America & the Caribbean and will use drone technology to collect data on fine scale landscape changes.

Related collections

Most cited references 15

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

0 comments Cited 7581 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz … (2017)

Background Synthesis of multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in a systematic review can summarize the effects of individual outcomes and provide numerical answers about the effectiveness of interventions. Filtering of searches is time consuming, and no single method fulfills the principal requirements of speed with accuracy. Automation of systematic reviews is driven by a necessity to expedite the availability of current best evidence for policy and clinical decision-making. We developed Rayyan (http://rayyan.qcri.org), a free web and mobile app, that helps expedite the initial screening of abstracts and titles using a process of semi-automation while incorporating a high level of usability. For the beta testing phase, we used two published Cochrane reviews in which included studies had been selected manually. Their searches, with 1030 records and 273 records, were uploaded to Rayyan. Different features of Rayyan were tested using these two reviews. We also conducted a survey of Rayyan’s users and collected feedback through a built-in feature. Results Pilot testing of Rayyan focused on usability, accuracy against manual methods, and the added value of the prediction feature. The “taster” review (273 records) allowed a quick overview of Rayyan for early comments on usability. The second review (1030 records) required several iterations to identify the previously identified 11 trials. The “suggestions” and “hints,” based on the “prediction model,” appeared as testing progressed beyond five included studies. Post rollout user experiences and a reflexive response by the developers enabled real-time modifications and improvements. The survey respondents reported 40% average time savings when using Rayyan compared to others tools, with 34% of the respondents reporting more than 50% time savings. In addition, around 75% of the respondents mentioned that screening and labeling studies as well as collaborating on reviews to be the two most important features of Rayyan. As of November 2016, Rayyan users exceed 2000 from over 60 countries conducting hundreds of reviews totaling more than 1.6M citations. Feedback from users, obtained mostly through the app web site and a recent survey, has highlighted the ease in exploration of searches, the time saved, and simplicity in sharing and comparing include-exclude decisions. The strongest features of the app, identified and reported in user feedback, were its ability to help in screening and collaboration as well as the time savings it affords to users. Conclusions Rayyan is responsive and intuitive in use with significant potential to lighten the load of reviewers.

0 comments Cited 4359 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Is Open Access

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

Jessie L. McGowan, Margaret Sampson, Douglas M Salzwedel … (2016)

To develop an evidence-based guideline for Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) for systematic reviews (SRs), health technology assessments, and other evidence syntheses.

0 comments Cited 1169 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Remy Hoek Spaans:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6926-4747

Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: VisualizationRole: Writing – original draft

Bruna Drumond: Role: ConceptualizationRole: MethodologyRole: Writing – original draft

Kim Robin van Daalen: Role: MethodologyRole: Writing – review & editing

Ana Claudia Rorato Vitor: Role: Writing – review & editing

Alison Derbyshire:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3090-7331

Role: Methodology

Adriano Da Silva: Role: Methodology

Raquel Martins Lana: Role: Writing – review & editing

Mauricio Santos Vega: Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing

Gabriel Carrasco-Escobar: Role: Funding acquisitionRole: Writing – review & editing

Maria Isabel Sobral Escada: Role: Writing – review & editing

Claudia Codeço: Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing

Rachel Lowe:

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-7343

Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: MethodologyRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing

Sathishkumar Veerappampalayam Easwaramoorthy: Role: Editor

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS One

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS One

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Title: PLOS ONE

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )

ISSN (Electronic): 1932-6203

Publication date (Electronic): 31 January 2024

Publication date Collection: 2024

Volume: 19

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: e0287270

Affiliations

[1 ] Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), Barcelona, Spain

[2 ] Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (LSTM), Liverpool, United Kingdom

[3 ] Programa de Pós-Graduação em Saúde Pública, Escola Nacional de Saúde Pública Sergio Arouca (ENSP), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

[4 ] Programa Institucional Territórios Sustentáveis e Saudáveis (PITSS), Vice-Presidência de Ambiente, Atenção e Promoção da Saúde (VPAAPS), Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

[5 ] National Institute for Space Research (INPE), Laboratory for Investigation in Socio-Environmental Systems (LiSS), São José dos Campos, Brazil

[6 ] Instituto de Comunicação e Informação Científica e Tecnológica em Saúde/Fiocruz (Icict/Fiocuz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

[7 ] Grupo en Biologia Matematica y Computacional, Departamento de Ciencias Biologicas, Universidad de los Andes, Bogota, Colombia

[8 ] Health Innovation Laboratory, Institute of Tropical Medicine “Alexander von Humboldt”, Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru

[9 ] Programa de Computação Científica, Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

[10 ] Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA), Barcelona, Spain

[11 ] Centre on Climate Change & Planetary Health and Centre for Mathematical Modelling of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

Sunway University, MALAYSIA

Author notes

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

* E-mail: remy.hoekspaans@ 123456bsc.es (RHS); rachel.lowe@ 123456bsc.es (RL)

Author information

Remy Hoek Spaans https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6926-4747

Alison Derbyshire https://orcid.org/0009-0007-3090-7331

Rachel Lowe https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-7343

Article

Publisher ID: PONE-D-23-15407

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287270

PMC ID: 10829986

PubMed ID: 38295017

SO-VID: 2f2c535e-af0c-477a-b2e8-45d2ca39e0e3

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Date received : 1 June 2023

Date accepted : 14 December 2023

Page count

Figures: 1, Tables: 4, Pages: 10

Funding

Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100010269, Wellcome Trust;

Award ID: 224694/Z/21/Z

Award Recipient :

ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3939-7343

Rachel Lowe

RL is the principal investigator of the Wellcome Trust ( https://wellcome.org/) funded HARMONIZE project. The project award reference is 224694/Z/21/Z. The funders had no role in the study design.

Custom metadata

Data Availability No datasets were generated or analysed during the current study. All relevant data from this study will be made available upon study completion.

Ethical considerations related to drone use for environment and health research: A scoping review protocol

Read this article at

Abstract

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Related collections

Climate Change: Open Access

Most cited references 15

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews

PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement.

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 467

Cited by 1

Most referenced authors 408