Literature DB >> 16220625

Reactions to research participation in vulnerable subgroups.

Cathy Spatz Widom1, Sally J Czaja.   

Abstract

This paper describes the extent to which vulnerable individuals (defined by economic, social, psychological, physical health, and child maltreatment status) react to research participation. As part of an ongoing longitudinal study, participants (N=896) completed a lengthy and intrusive in-person interview and provided a small amount of blood through finger pricks. At the end of the interview, participants were asked eight questions about their reactions to the research experience. Vulnerable individuals in general agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction, but were not less willing to continue to participate. In addition, psychologically vulnerable individuals more strongly agreed they would continue to participate, were treated with respect and dignity, and found their participation meaningful. Compared to whites, nonwhites reported stronger agreement about the meaningfulness of the research and the belief that their responses would be kept private. Like others, individuals vulnerable by virtue of their prisoner status or homelessness (past or current) agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction to the interview, but otherwise did not differ in their reactions. These results suggest that researchers and institutional review boards should not be deterred from conducting research on sensitive topics with potentially vulnerable populations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16220625     DOI: 10.1080/08989620590957193

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Account Res        ISSN: 0898-9621            Impact factor:   2.622


  7 in total

1.  The Ethics of Clinical Trials Research in Severe Mood Disorders.

Authors:  Allison C Nugent; Franklin G Miller; Ioline D Henter; Carlos A Zarate
Journal:  Bioethics       Date:  2017-05-15       Impact factor: 1.898

2.  Address-Based Sampling for Recruiting Rural Subpopulations: A 2-Phase, Multimode Approach.

Authors:  Tiffany L Thomson; Julianna M Nemeth; Juan Peng; Bo Lu; Amy K Ferketich; Electra D Paskett; Mary Ellen Wewers
Journal:  J Rural Health       Date:  2017-07-07       Impact factor: 4.333

3.  Perceptions and experiences of research participants on gender-based violence community based survey: implications for ethical guidelines.

Authors:  Yandisa Sikweyiya; Rachel Jewkes
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-04-27       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study.

Authors:  Jane Paik Kim; Katie Ryan; Tenzin Tsungmey; Max Kasun; Willa A Roberts; Laura B Dunn; Laura Weiss Roberts
Journal:  J Psychiatr Res       Date:  2021-04-06       Impact factor: 5.250

5.  No regrets: Young adult patients in psychiatry report positive reactions to biobank participation.

Authors:  Janet L Cunningham; Manuel Zanzi; Mimmie Willebrand; Lisa Ekselius; Mia Ramklint
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2017-01-17       Impact factor: 3.630

6.  The Safe Pregnancy study - promoting safety behaviours in antenatal care among Norwegian, Pakistani and Somali pregnant women: a study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Lena Henriksen; Eva Marie Flaathen; Jeanette Angelshaug; Lisa Garnweidner-Holme; Milada Cvancarova Småstuen; Josef Noll; Angela Taft; Berit Schei; Mirjam Lukasse
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2019-06-10       Impact factor: 3.295

Review 7.  Research risk for persons with psychiatric disorders: a decisional framework to meet the ethical challenge.

Authors:  Philip T Yanos; Barbara S Stanley; Carolyn S Greene
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 4.157

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.