Literature DB >> 23031604

Altruism and participation in longitudinal health research? Insights from the Whitehall II Study.

Gill Mein1, Clive Seale, Helen Rice, Suneeta Johal, Richard E Ashcroft, George Ellison, Anthea Tinker.   

Abstract

Research that follows people over a period of time (longitudinal or panel studies) is important in understanding the ageing process and changes over time in the lives of older people. Older people may choose to leave studies due to frailty, or illness and this may diminish the value of the study. However, people also drop out of studies for other reasons and understanding the motivation behind participation or drop out may prevent further loss of valuable longitudinal information and assist the continuation of longitudinal studies. This paper examines qualitative data from interviews and focus groups in 2003/2008 with participants of the Whitehall II Study (based at UCL), and investigates reasons participants give for participating in longitudinal health studies, and recommendations they give for encouraging continued participation as they grow older. A total of 28 participants and 14 staff were interviewed, and 17 participants took part in focus groups. Our findings are discussed in the light of the debate between of altruism and reciprocity. Rather than being wholly motivated by altruism, as research staff had assumed, participants were motivated by the benefits they perceived, particularly the information and care received during the medical examinations and the sense of loyalty and membership associated with being part of the study. Our findings support the view that far from being primarily motivated by altruism, research participation in studies such as this may also involve a degree of implicit and explicit reciprocity. However, participants disliked the obligation to complete the study questionnaires--which may have influenced the expectation of payment or reciprocation, as participation was not wholly pleasing. To try and maintain participation in longitudinal health studies this project recommended gathering information from exit interviews as a way of preventing further withdrawals and closer involvement of participants through a user panel.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23031604     DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.09.006

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  16 in total

1.  Challenges in efficacy research: the case of feeding alternatives in patients with dementia.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Elaine Amella; Gayenell Magwood; Mohan Madisetti; Donald Garrow; Melissa Batchelor-Aselage
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2014-02-25       Impact factor: 3.187

2.  Was it worth it? Patients' perspectives on the perceived value of genomic-based individualized medicine.

Authors:  Colin Me Halverson; Kristin E Clift; Jennifer B McCormick
Journal:  J Community Genet       Date:  2016-02-09

3.  Reasons for and reservations about research participation in acutely injured adults.

Authors:  Elliane Irani; Therese S Richmond
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2015-01-19       Impact factor: 3.176

4.  Understanding motivations to participate in an observational research study: Why do patients enroll?

Authors:  Michael C Soule; Eleanor E Beale; Laura Suarez; Scott R Beach; Carol A Mastromauro; Christopher M Celano; Shannon V Moore; Jeff C Huffman
Journal:  Soc Work Health Care       Date:  2016-03-02

5.  Factors Influencing the Research Participation of Adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

Authors:  Kaaren Haas; Debra Costley; Marita Falkmer; Amanda Richdale; Kate Sofronoff; Torbjörn Falkmer
Journal:  J Autism Dev Disord       Date:  2016-05

6.  Reasons for participation in a child development study: Are cases with developmental diagnoses different from controls?

Authors:  Chyrise B Bradley; Amanda L Tapia; Carolyn G DiGuiseppi; Marti W Kepner; Joy M Kloetzer; Laura A Schieve; Lisa D Wiggins; Gayle C Windham; Julie L Daniels
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2022-02-02       Impact factor: 3.103

7.  Motives for participating in a web-based nutrition cohort according to sociodemographic, lifestyle, and health characteristics: the NutriNet-Santé cohort study.

Authors:  Caroline Méjean; Fabien Szabo de Edelenyi; Mathilde Touvier; Emmanuelle Kesse-Guyot; Chantal Julia; Valentina A Andreeva; Serge Hercberg
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-08-07       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  Maternal participant experience in a South African birth cohort study enrolling healthy pregnant women and their infants.

Authors:  Whitney Barnett; Kirsty Brittain; Katherine Sorsdahl; Heather J Zar; Dan J Stein
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 2.464

9.  Using a birth cohort to study ageing: representativeness and response rates in the National Survey of Health and Development.

Authors:  M Stafford; S Black; I Shah; R Hardy; M Pierce; M Richards; A Wong; D Kuh
Journal:  Eur J Ageing       Date:  2013-06

10.  Principal components analysis to identify influences on research communication and engagement during an environmental disaster.

Authors:  Charlene A Winters; Colleen F Moore; Sandra W Kuntz; Clarann Weinert; Tanis Hernandez; Brad Black
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2016-08-09       Impact factor: 2.692

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.