השוואת שיטות

	נהלי תדרוך משתתפים	הערכת סיכונים-תועלות בפרוטוקולי מחקר
תחום	אתיקה במחקר	אתיקה במחקר
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	1982	1979
הוגה השיטה	American Psychological Association; International research ethics community	U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; International research ethics community
סוג	Procedure	Framework
מקור מכונן	American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Section 8.08 - Debriefing.	The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.
כינויים	debriefing, post-study debriefing, debrief session, participant disclosure	risk-benefit analysis, risk-benefit calculation, risk-benefit justification, harm-benefit ratio
קשורות	5	5
תקציר	Participant debriefing is a post-study conversation or disclosure providing information to participants after research participation concludes. Debriefing serves multiple ethical purposes: (1) explaining the research aims and design, (2) revealing any deception (if applicable), (3) addressing misconceptions, (4) offering support if the research caused discomfort, (5) providing information about study findings, and (6) ensuring participants understand their rights (e.g., right to withdraw data). Debriefing is especially important in research involving deception (participants must learn the truth), sensitive topics (participants may experience distress), or invasive procedures (participants deserve explanation). The American Psychological Association's Ethical Code, ESOMAR guidelines, and international research ethics frameworks emphasize debriefing as a core protective procedure.	A risk-benefit assessment is a systematic evaluation of the potential harms and benefits of a proposed research study, documented in ethics committee applications. The Belmont Report (1979) established the principle of beneficence—maximizing benefits while minimizing harm—as a cornerstone of research ethics. Regulatory frameworks (45 CFR 46.111 in the U.S., equivalent in other jurisdictions) require ethics committees to determine that risks are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits before approving research. This assessment is not a simple calculation (risks + benefits) but a qualitative judgment incorporating probability, magnitude, and distribution of harms and benefits.