Ruth Parry1, Marco Pino1, Christina Faull2, Luke Feathers3. 1. Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK. 2. LOROS Hospice Care for Leicestershire and Rutland, and Medicine University Hospitals Leicester, UK. 3. LOROS Hospice Care for Leicestershire and Rutland, and Medicine University Hospitals Leicester, UK. Electronic address: ruth.parry@nottingham.ac.uk.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To contribute to understandings about acceptability and risks entailed in video-based research on healthcare communication. To generate recommendations for non-covert video-based research on healthcare communication - with a focus on maximising its acceptability to participants, and managing and reducing its risks. METHODS: A literature review and synthesis of (a) empirical research on participant acceptability and risks of video recording; (b) regulations of professional and governmental bodies; (c) reviews and commentaries; (d) guidance and recommendations. These were gathered across several academic and professional fields (including medical, educational, and social scientific). RESULTS: 36 publications were included in the review and synthesis (7 regulatory documents, 7 empirical, 4 reviews/commentaries, 18 guidance/recommendations). In the context of research aiming in some way to improve healthcare communication: CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations are designed to support deliberations and decisions about individual studies and to support ethical scrutiny of proposed research studies. Whilst preliminary, it is nevertheless the most comprehensive and detailed currently available.
OBJECTIVES: To contribute to understandings about acceptability and risks entailed in video-based research on healthcare communication. To generate recommendations for non-covert video-based research on healthcare communication - with a focus on maximising its acceptability to participants, and managing and reducing its risks. METHODS: A literature review and synthesis of (a) empirical research on participant acceptability and risks of video recording; (b) regulations of professional and governmental bodies; (c) reviews and commentaries; (d) guidance and recommendations. These were gathered across several academic and professional fields (including medical, educational, and social scientific). RESULTS: 36 publications were included in the review and synthesis (7 regulatory documents, 7 empirical, 4 reviews/commentaries, 18 guidance/recommendations). In the context of research aiming in some way to improve healthcare communication: CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations are designed to support deliberations and decisions about individual studies and to support ethical scrutiny of proposed research studies. Whilst preliminary, it is nevertheless the most comprehensive and detailed currently available.
Authors: Maria Cherba; Boris H J M Brummans; Michael P Hier; Lauriane Giguère; Gabrielle Chartier; Hannah Jacobs; Véronique-Isabelle Forest; Alex Mlynarek; Khalil Sultanem; Melissa Henry Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2022-05-05 Impact factor: 3.109
Authors: Charlotte Gjørup Pedersen; Lea Høj Høstrup; Birgitte Bitsch Gadager; Claus Vinther Nielsen; Thomas Maribo; Louise Sofia Madsen Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2022-06-09 Impact factor: 1.792
Authors: Marcus Jepson; Chris Salisbury; Matthew J Ridd; Chris Metcalfe; Ludivine Garside; Rebecca K Barnes Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2017-04-10 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: C Emilson; P Åsenlöf; S Pettersson; S Bergman; M Sandborgh; C Martin; I Demmelmaier Journal: BMC Musculoskelet Disord Date: 2016-07-27 Impact factor: 2.362