Noland, Ebba
Klötz Logan, Fia
Sjöström, Stefan
Strandh, Mattias
Funding for this research was provided by:
Umea University
Article History
Received: 4 May 2023
Accepted: 30 November 2023
First Online: 12 December 2023
Declarations
:
: Ethical approval for the research was given by the regional ethical review board in Umeå, dnr 2018/222−31, and supplemental ethical approval was given by the Swedish National Ethical Review Authority (the approval of dual review boards was related to a reorganisation after the first ethical approval, creating a National Authority instead of several smaller regional boards), dnr 2019–05055. Administrative permissions from the Swedish National Forensic Psychiatric Register (SNFPR) were then required to access the register data.All methods were carried out in accordance with relevant guidelines and regulations, and all individuals included in the SNFPR had been informed about their right to, at any time, opt-out of the register. Informed consent from each participant has therefore not been obtained. This is acceptable according to the Swedish Ethical Review Act [CitationRef removed], which applies to research carried out in Sweden. The Act states that research without informed consent is allowed if it is expected to provide knowledge which could not be obtained through research with informed consent, the purpose of the research is to provide knowledge that will benefit the research person, and the research includes insignificant risks of harm or discomfort for the research person. These aspects were taken into consideration by the Swedish National Ethical Review Board (see “Ethics approval”). See more discussion on the ethical aspects of registry-based research in the Nordic countries by JF Ludvigsson, SE Håberg, GP Knudsen, P Lafolie, H Zoega, C Sarkkola, S von Kraemer, E Weiderpass and M Nørgaard [CitationRef removed].
: Not applicable.
: The authors declare no competing interests.