Ethical inclusion in community research: a comment on ‘Consent, assent and randomised evaluations’ by Michael Sanders et al

Marc Atkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16905535761957

2023-09-01

Evidence & Policy

Abstract:This commentary responds to points raised by Sanders et al in ‘Consent, assent and randomised evaluations’ ( Evidence & Policy , XX(XX): 1–12, 10.1332/174426421X16842419724551 ).

social sciences, interdisciplinary

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers' perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies

Giles Birchley,Richard Huxtable,Madeleine Murtagh,Ruud Ter Meulen,Peter Flach,Rachael Gooberman-Hill

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-017-0183-z

2017-04-04

Abstract:Background: Smart-home technologies, comprising environmental sensors, wearables and video are attracting interest in home healthcare delivery. Development of such technology is usually justified on the basis of the technology's potential to increase the autonomy of people living with long-term conditions. Studies of the ethics of smart-homes raise concerns about privacy, consent, social isolation and equity of access. Few studies have investigated the ethical perspectives of smart-home engineers themselves. By exploring the views of engineering researchers in a large smart-home project, we sought to contribute to dialogue between ethics and the engineering community. Methods: Either face-to-face or using Skype, we conducted in-depth qualitative interviews with 20 early- and mid-career smart-home researchers from a multi-centre smart-home project, who were asked to describe their own experience and to reflect more broadly about ethical considerations that relate to smart-home design. With participants' consent, interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed using a thematic approach. Results: Two overarching themes emerged: in 'Privacy', researchers indicated that they paid close attention to negative consequences of potential unauthorised information sharing in their current work. However, when discussing broader issues in smart-home design beyond the confines of their immediate project, researchers considered physical privacy to a lesser extent, even though physical privacy may manifest in emotive concerns about being watched or monitored. In 'Choice', researchers indicated they often saw provision of choice to end-users as a solution to ethical dilemmas. While researchers indicated that choices of end-users may need to be restricted for technological reasons, ethical standpoints that restrict choice were usually assumed and embedded in design. Conclusions: The tractability of informational privacy may explain the greater attention that is paid to it. However, concerns about physical privacy may reduce acceptability of smart-home technologies to future end-users. While attention to choice suggests links with privacy, this may misidentify the sources of privacy and risk unjustly burdening end-users with problems that they cannot resolve. Separating considerations of choice and privacy may result in more satisfactory treatment of both. Finally, through our engagement with researchers as participants this study demonstrates the relevance of (bio)ethics as a critical partner to smart-home engineering.
Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms

Alex McKeown,Miranda Mourby,Paul Harrison,Sophie Walker,Mark Sheehan,Ilina Singh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-021-00282-0

IF: 3.777

2021-02-01

Science and Engineering Ethics

Abstract:Abstract Data platforms represent a new paradigm for carrying out health research. In the platform model, datasets are pooled for remote access and analysis, so novel insights for developing better stratified and/or personalised medicine approaches can be derived from their integration. If the integration of diverse datasets enables development of more accurate risk indicators, prognostic factors, or better treatments and interventions, this obviates the need for the sharing and reuse of data; and a platform-based approach is an appropriate model for facilitating this. Platform-based approaches thus require new thinking about consent. Here we defend an approach to meeting this challenge within the data platform model, grounded in: the notion of ‘reasonable expectations’ for the reuse of data; Waldron’s account of ‘integrity’ as a heuristic for managing disagreement about the ethical permissibility of the approach; and the element of the social contract that emphasises the importance of public engagement in embedding new norms of research consistent with changing technological realities. While a social contract approach may sound appealing, however, it is incoherent in the context at hand. We defend a way forward guided by that part of the social contract which requires public approval for the proposal and argue that we have moral reasons to endorse a wider presumption of data reuse. However, we show that the relationship in question is not recognisably contractual and that the social contract approach is therefore misleading in this context. We conclude stating four requirements on which the legitimacy of our proposal rests.

ethics,history & philosophy of science,multidisciplinary sciences,engineering, multidisciplinary
Co-constructing participatory ethics to address hierarchy and inequality: Social work ethics in research practice

Mattias De Backer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/14687941221098931

2022-05-07

Qualitative Research

Abstract:Qualitative Research, Ahead of Print. Research on a sensitive and potentially stigmatising topic such as 'radicalisation' begs for a robust ethical framework. Ethical procedures, issuing from an institutional ethics commission, are not sufficient to manage these risks. Arguably, collaborative and participatory research is best suited to overcome the risks of doing research on such a sensitive topic as well as the hierarchy and inequality in the relationship between researchers, gatekeepers and participants. To co-construct a participatory ethical framework in this context, 22 social workers were asked about the core ethical values of their own professional context. In this paper, these social work ethics are brought in tension with the practice of doing research. The paper concludes with the insight that social work ethics are not transferrable to the research context in a straightforward manner. Hierarchy and inequality (as well as much frustration) will persist if only this strategy is adopted.

sociology,social sciences, interdisciplinary
The epistemology of evidence-based policies and practices: a comment on ‘When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences’ by Christian Gade

Zachary P. Neal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/17442648y2023d000000011

2023-12-26

Evidence & Policy

Abstract:This commentary responds to Gade in ‘When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences’(Evidence & Policy, XX(XX): 1–10, DOI: 10.1332/174426421X16905606522863 ).

social sciences, interdisciplinary
Inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and or communication in research: triangulation from a mixed-methods study of current practice and values across multiple stakeholders

Anne Killett,Peter E Langdon,Hayley Ryan,Ciara Shiggins,Rob Heywood,Oluseyi F Jimoh,Marcus Redley,Karen Bunning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2022-068366

IF: 3.006

2023-04-28

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objectives: We aimed to: (A) describe researcher decision-making when including or excluding adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication in research and (B) explore the underlying values and reasoning of stakeholders in research which falls under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act, 2005. Design: The mixed-methods design included semistructured interviews with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication, supporters, researchers, research ethics committee members and an online survey with researchers. Triangulation was used to integrate the data and examine the complementarity of the findings. Setting: England and Wales. Participants: There were 61 participants who took part in semistructured interviews, of which 39 were adults with conditions with potential to affect capacity and/or communication, 6 were in support roles for adults with conditions with potential to affect capacity and/or communication (including family members and professionals in advocacy organisations), 8 were members of research ethics committees flagged under the Mental Capacity Act to review research where there could be issues of mental capacity and 8 were researchers with experience of working with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication. The online survey had 128 participants, researchers with experience of working with adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication. Results: All stakeholders were supportive of the genuine inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication in research, and exclusion was seen as a form of discrimination. Many researchers were daunted by meeting the threshold within the legislation for including participants who may lack capacity. Conclusion: Further training, expertise and resources are required to promote the successful inclusion in research of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication.
Making Autism Research Inclusive by Attending to Intersectionality: a Review of the Research Ethics Literature

M. A. Cascio,J. A. Weiss,E. Racine

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40489-020-00204-z

2020-05-14

Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders

Abstract:Growth in autism research necessitates corresponding attention to autism research ethics, including ethical and meaningful inclusion of diverse participants. This paper presents the results of a review of research ethics literature, strengthened by consultation with a task force involving autism professionals, family members, and self-advocates on the spectrum. It reviews research ethics concerns around sex and gender; level of support needs; communication modes; race, ethnicity, geography, and language; socioeconomic status; and age. The exclusion of marginalized subgroups of people with autism is a major ethical concern. Researchers can facilitate inclusion by using inclusive terminology, developing accessible communication strategies, or traveling to meet participants. A person-oriented research ethics framework described in this paper structures the advice offered in the literature to create inclusive and supportive research environments.

psychology, developmental
"Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource

Etain Quigley,Ingrid Holme,David M Doyle,Aileen K Ho,Eamonn Ambrose,Katie Kirkwood,Gerardine Doyle

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40504-021-00118-6

2021-12-10

Abstract:As with other areas of the social world, academic research in the contemporary healthcare setting has undergone adaptation and change. For example, research methods are increasingly incorporating citizen participation in the research process, and there has been an increase in collaborative research that brings academic and industry partners together. There have been numerous positive outcomes associated with both of these growing methodological and collaborative processes; nonetheless, both bring with them ethical considerations that require careful thought and attention. This paper addresses the ethical considerations that research teams must consider when using participatory methods and/or when working with industry and outlines a novel informed consent matrix designed to maintain the high ethical standard to which academic research in the healthcare arena has traditionally adhered.
The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research

Emily A Largent,Steven Joffe,Neal W Dickert,Stephanie R Morain

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241259360

2024-06-26

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. There is growing interest in using embedded research methods, particularly pragmatic clinical trials, to address well-known evidentiary shortcomings afflicting the health care system. Reviews of pragmatic clinical trials published between 2014 and 2019 found that 8.8% were conducted with waivers of informed consent; furthermore, the number of trials where consent is not obtained is increasing with time. From a regulatory perspective, waivers of informed consent are permissible when certain conditions are met, including that the study involves no more than minimal risk, that it could not practicably be carried out without a waiver, and that waiving consent does not violate participants' rights and welfare. Nevertheless, when research is conducted with a waiver of consent, several ethical challenges arise. We must consider how to: address empirical evidence showing that patients and members of the public generally prefer prospective consent, demonstrate respect for persons using tools other than consent, promote public trust and investigator integrity, and ensure an adequate level of participant protections. In this article, we use examples drawn from real pragmatic clinical trials to argue that prospective consultation with representatives of the target study population can address, or at least mitigate, many of the ethical challenges posed by waivers of informed consent. We also consider what consultation might involve to illustrate its feasibility and address potential objections.

medicine, research & experimental
Public attitudes towards social media field experiments

Vincent J. Straub,Jason W. Burton,Michael Geers,Philipp Lorenz-Spreen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-76948-z

IF: 4.6

2024-10-31

Scientific Reports

Abstract:The growing use of social media field experiments demands a rethink of current research ethics in computational social science and psychological research. Here, we provide an exploratory empirical account of key user concerns and outline a number of critical discussions that need to take place to protect participants and help researchers to make use of the novel opportunities of digital data collection and field studies. Our primary contention is that we need to elicit public perceptions to devise more up-to-date guidelines for review boards whilst also allowing and encouraging researchers to arrive at more ethical individual study design choices themselves. To ground our discussion in real-world examples of online experiments, we focus on recent social media studies in the field of misinformation, polarization, and hate speech research. We conclude by discussing how we can better strike a balance between meeting ethical guidelines and the concerns of social media users alongside maximizing scientific impact and credibility.

multidisciplinary sciences
Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis

Flavio D’Abramo,Jan Schildmann,Jochen Vollmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0053-5

2015-09-09

BMC Medical Ethics

Abstract:BackgroundAppropriate information and consent has been one of the most intensely discussed topics within the context of biobank research. In parallel to the normative debate, many socio-empirical studies have been conducted to gather experiences, preferences and views of patients, healthy research participants and further stakeholders. However, there is scarcity of literature which connects the normative debate about justifications for different consent models with findings gained in empirical research. In this paper we discuss findings of a limited review of socio-empirical research on patients’ and healthy research participants’ experiences and views regarding consent to biobank research in light of ethical principles for appropriate information and consent.MethodsReview question: Which empirical data are available on research participants’ perceptions and views regarding information and elicitation of consent for biobank research? Search of articles published till March 1st 2014 in Pubmed. Review of abstracts and potentially relevant full text articles by two authors independently. As categories for content analysis we defined (i) understanding or recall of information, (ii) preferences regarding information or consent, and (iii) research participants’ concerns.ResultsThe search in Pubmed yielded 337 abstracts of which 10 articles were included in this study. Approaches to information and consent varied considerably across the selected studies. The majority of research participants opted for some version of limited consent when being informed about such possibility. Among the factors influencing the type of preferred consent were information about sponsoring of biobank research by pharmaceutical industry and participants’ trade-off between privacy and perceived utility. Studies investigating research participants’ understanding and recall regarding the consent procedure indicated considerable lack of both aspects. Research participants’ perceptions of benefits and harms differ across those studies.ConclusionThe knowledge, perceptions and views of research participants who have undergone a consent procedure within the context of biobank research raise several questions on the issue of how to inform and elicit consent in an ethically acceptable way. In our empirical-ethical analysis we develop suggestions on how the practice of eliciting consent in the biobank context should be improved.

ethics,medical ethics,social sciences, biomedical
The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved – can we do better?

Matthew Parsons,James Ratcliff,Bernadette Egan,Hana Hassanin,Aftab Ala

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinme.2023.100012

IF: 5.41

2024-01-01

Clinical Medicine

Abstract:Research ethics committees exist internationally to review research proposals to protect the rights and safety of human participants and researchers involved in research. These committees recruit a panel of expert and lay members, mostly on an unpaid voluntary basis, with relevant scientific experience to appraise these studies. Contemporary data in the UK show that women and people over 55 years old are overrepresented in these committee panels in the Health Research Authority, suggesting that there are potential barriers to inclusivity and participation. A variety of global approaches to tackle these barriers include targeting specific populations, such as faith or community leaders, or implementing quotas have been adopted. Further research is needed to understand likely barriers preventing participation in research ethics committees in the UK and how they may be overcome.

medicine, general & internal
Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials

Katherine Sahan,Rohan Wijesurendra,David Preiss,Marion Mafham,Mark Sheehan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-024-08330-3

IF: 2.728

2024-08-18

Trials

Abstract:There are good practical reasons to use electronic consent (e-consent) in randomised trials, especially when conducting large-scale clinical trials to answer population-level health research questions. However, determining ethical reasons for e-consent is not so clear and depends on a proper understanding of what e-consent means when used in clinical trials and its ethical significance. Here we focus on four features of ethical significance which give rise to a range of ethical considerations relating to e-consent and merit further focused ethics research.

medicine, research & experimental
Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

Rebecca Campbell,Michael Morris

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12177

Abstract:In this concluding essay, we review the case studies presented in this Special Issue and examine whether community psychology has a distinctive approach to defining and resolving the core ethical canons of the Belmont Report (1979): Respect for Persons, Beneficence, and Justice. For two of these Principles-Respect for Persons and Beneficence-community psychologists elaborate upon and extend their definitions to consider their meaning in community-based, social justice-oriented research. The field's approach to Respect for Persons is multilevel in nature; in addition to respecting individuals and their diverse identities, we also have obligations to respect our community partnerships, the communities with whom we work, and the populations and cultures represented in our work. Similarly, for community psychologists, Beneficence is a multilevel construct that considers risks and benefits at the group, community, and cultural levels of analysis. With respect to Justice, community psychologists' views of our ethical responsibilities are qualitatively different in meaning from the original Belmont Report and from disciplinary-specific interpretations of this principle in ethical guidance documents from psychology, sociology, and evaluation. Our valuing of social change demands that we contribute to individual and group empowerment and liberation, and in so doing, that we avoid collusion with oppressive systems. Thus, we define our ethical responsibilities for promoting Justice as more action-oriented than do other disciplines. The essay closes with an exploration of future directions for developing a comprehensive ethical framework for community psychology.
Navigating social work practice research challenges: collaboration, participant rights and ethics

Helen Gleeson,Lucille Allain,Helen Hingley-Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1332/27551768y2024d000000011

2024-04-01

Abstract:In this article, we discuss the challenges in engaging with research participants from marginalised communities, including from some minority communities where there are interconnecting issues of poverty, racism, school exclusion, family breakdown and sometimes youth crime. This is aligned with experiences of developing research partnerships with local services in evaluation work. Two research case studies, from evaluation research with child and family social work and the youth justice system, discuss experiences of researching within inner-city areas, navigating researcher–practitioner relationships and maintaining ethical research standards. In both cases, entering the research field presented challenges related to sensitivities and distress experienced by participants. Our case-study discussions demonstrate how the researchers responded to risk and unwitting involvement with young people in conflict, in prison and experiencing family bereavement. Highlighted is the vital importance of local agencies providing accurate information about the families and young people that the researchers are asked to contact in order to ensure that respect and research ethics are upheld and no trauma is caused. Planning and building trust are key to ensuring that time is given for respectful engagement and that agencies are ready for ongoing support and follow-up as needed. The article will explore how these methodological considerations can be taken forward.
Ethical and social dilemmas in community-based controlled trials in situations of poverty: a view from a South African project

Nosisana Nama,Leslie Swartz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.682

Abstract:All psychological and social research presents ethical dilemmas, many of which centre around the difficulties which flow from the power imbalances between those conducting the research and the research respondents or participants. Issues of power are magnified in research undertaken in contexts of poverty, and there is a burgeoning literature on ethical issues in research in developing countries. In this article, we augment the existing literature by focusing on the experiences of an assessor working in a controlled trial of a mother-infant intervention in a poor South African community. We consider issues of community expectations, the presentation to our project of physical health problems, the issue of HIV/AIDS, cultural beliefs which impact on the research, child protection issues, and the tensions between research assessment and ubuntu--a cultural norm which requires helpful engagement with others. We suggest that our experiences may assist with the development of further research.
Social Validity of Research Ethics for All: Social-Behavioral Research Ethics Education for Community Research Partners with Developmental Disabilities

Ariel E. Schwartz,Katherine McDonald

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dhjo.2024.101762

IF: 4.615

2024-11-30

Disability and Health Journal

Abstract:Background Training in research ethics supports community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on additional research responsibilities. We worked with an academic-community partnership to develop an accessible research ethics training tailored to the roles of community research partners with developmental disabilities that leads to certification: Research Ethics for All. Objective We evaluated the social validity of the educational activities and certification process. Methods We shared the training via a webinar and gathered feedback from attendees using polls (138 attendees; 92 respondents). In addition, four research teams composed of academic researchers and community research partners with developmental disabilities completed Research Ethics for All. Teams provided feedback on a series of surveys as they prepared to use the training, completed each of the 5 learning units, and after completing the training. We calculated descriptive statistics and used a pragmatic content analysis approach to analyze open-ended data. Results Teams were satisfied with the training and felt it supported learning. They endorsed the videos and learning activities but thought videos should be shorter. 68.5% of webinar attendees felt that Research Ethics for All covers essential information in social-behavioral research ethics. Several IRBs have approved the use of Research Ethics for All. Conclusions Research Ethics for All is an acceptable research ethics training that may support community research partners with developmental disabilities to take on important research responsibilities in social-behavioral research.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,rehabilitation,health policy & services
Special Issue: Why Ethically Reflect on Empirical Studies in Empirical Ethics? Case Studies and Commentaries

Sabine Wöhlke,Silke Schicktanz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619862395

2019-08-08

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Abstract:In empirical ethics, ethical situations and decisions in different medical settings are often the focus of the research aim, for instance, to determine the extent to which a patient's self-determination can be maintained in certain clinical or care home settings. To give an example: in a clinical study, a researcher used nonparticipatory observations of physician–patient consultations outlining participation in a complex clinical biomarker study to gain detailed information on and concrete insights into the patient perspective. During one consultation, in addition to the biomarker study, a study nurse provided the patient with written recruitment material on other research studies. After the patient had consented to the biomarker study, the physician had told the patient that he could also sign up for these additional studies "only" if he wanted to. The patient, visibly fatigued after considering the information about the biomarker study, also signed the informed consent sheet for the second study without asking what that study entailed. This example demonstrates how a researcher may be confronted with ethical issues during data collection. In such situations, he or she has to decide to what extent it is appropriate for him or her to address this observed ethical issue during or after the observed situation.

ethics,medical ethics
Ethical considerations regarding the inclusion of children in nursing research

Aliza Damsma Bakker,René van Leeuwen,Petrie Roodbol

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0969733020948120

IF: 3.344

2020-09-30

Nursing Ethics

Abstract:Evidence-based nursing practice is based on three pillars: the available research, known preferences of the patient or patient group and the professional experience of the nurse. For all pillars, research is the tool to expand the evidence we have, but when implementing evidence-based practice in paediatric nursing two of the pillars demand that children are included as respondents: practice research on the nursing interventions in paediatrics and the preferences of patients, something recognized by scholars and practitioners. But including a vulnerable group as children in nursing research raises specific ethical issues that need to be considered by researchers. What are ethical considerations that are currently raised about doing research with children and what do we learn by synthesizing the narrative of these studies of why the issues are raised and which solutions can be offered for these issues? In this article, considerations on three ethical principles according to the Belmont report are described by examining recent research. Twenty-one studies were found addressing relevant ethical aspects including vulnerability, gaining consent, designing quantitative or qualitative research methods and considerations regarding the execution of the study. Ethical considerations should be much more a case of continuous awareness and attitude, then box-ticking exercise, although there are sufficient international guidelines available specifically for research that includes children to aid researchers.

nursing,ethics
Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process in rural African contexts

Richard Appiah

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00659-7

2021-07-23

Abstract:Background: Researchers conducting community-based participatory action research (CBPAR) in highly collectivistic and socioeconomically disadvantaged community settings in sub-Saharan Africa are confronted with the distinctive challenge of balancing universal ethical standards with local standards, where traditional customs or beliefs may conflict with regulatory requirements and ethical guidelines underlying the informed consent (IC) process. The unique ethnic, socioeconomic, and cultural diversities in these settings have important implications for the IC process, such as individual decisional autonomy, beneficence, confidentiality, and signing the IC document. Main text: Drawing on insights and field observations from conducting CBPARs across several rural, highly communal, low literate, and low-income communities in Ghana, we discuss some theoretical, ethico-cultural, and methodological challenges associated with applying the universal, Western individualistic cultural value-laden IC process in sub-Saharan Africa. By citing field situations, we discuss how local cultural customs and the socioeconomic adversities prevalent in these settings can influence (and disrupt) the information disclosure process, individual decisional authority for consent, and voluntariness. We review the theoretical assumptions of the Declaration of Helsinki's statement on IC and discuss its limitations as an ultimate guide for the conduct of social science research in the highly communal African context. We argue that the IC process in these settings should include strategies directed at preventing deception and coercion, in addition to ensuring respect for individual autonomy. We urge Universities, research institutions, and institutional review boards in Africa to design and promote the use of context-appropriate ethical IC guidelines that take into consideration both the local customs and traditional practices of the people as well as the scientific principles underpinning the universal IC standards. Conclusion: We recommend that, rather than adopt a universal one-size-fits-all IC approach, researchers working in the rural, highly collectivistic, low literate, socioeconomically disadvantaged settings of sub-Saharan Africa should deeply consider the roles and influence of cultural values and traditional practices on the IC and the research process. We encourage researchers to collaborate with target communities and stakeholders in the design and implementation of context-appropriate IC to prevent ethics dumping and safeguard the integrity of the research process.
Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"

Davina Banner,Katrina Plamondon,Nelly D. Oelke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34172/ijhpm.2024.7715

2024-03-13

International Journal of Health Policy and Management

Abstract:Deliberative dialogue (DD) may be relatively new in health research but has a rich history in fostering public engagement in political issues. Dialogic approaches are future-facing, comprising structured discussions and consensus building activities geared to the collective identification of actionable and contextualized solutions. Relying heavily on a need for coproduction and shared leadership, these approaches seek to garner meaningful collaborations between researchers and knowledge users, such as healthcare providers, decision-makers, patients, and the public. In this commentary, we explore some of the challenges, successes, and opportunities arising from public engagement in DD, drawing also upon insights gleaned from our own research, along with the case study presented by Scurr and colleagues. Specifically, we seek to expand discussions related to inclusion, power, and accessibility in DD, highlight the need for scholarship that addresses the epistemic, methodological, and practical aspects of patient and public engagement within dialogic methods, and identify promising practices.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services

Ethical inclusion in community research: a comment on ‘Consent, assent and randomised evaluations’ by Michael Sanders et al

Smart homes, private homes? An empirical study of technology researchers' perceptions of ethical issues in developing smart-home health technologies

Ethical Issues in Consent for the Reuse of Data in Health Data Platforms

Co-constructing participatory ethics to address hierarchy and inequality: Social work ethics in research practice

The epistemology of evidence-based policies and practices: a comment on ‘When is it justified to claim that a practice or policy is evidence-based? Reflections on evidence and preferences’ by Christian Gade

Inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and or communication in research: triangulation from a mixed-methods study of current practice and values across multiple stakeholders

Making Autism Research Inclusive by Attending to Intersectionality: a Review of the Research Ethics Literature

"Data is the new oil": citizen science and informed consent in an era of researchers handling of an economically valuable resource

The ethical value of consulting community members in non-emergency trials conducted with waivers of informed consent for research

Public attitudes towards social media field experiments

Research participants’ perceptions and views on consent for biobank research: a review of empirical data and ethical analysis

The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved – can we do better?

Towards an understanding of the ethics of electronic consent in clinical trials

Complicating Narratives: Defining and Deconstructing Ethical Challenges in Community Psychology

Navigating social work practice research challenges: collaboration, participant rights and ethics

Ethical and social dilemmas in community-based controlled trials in situations of poverty: a view from a South African project

Social Validity of Research Ethics for All: Social-Behavioral Research Ethics Education for Community Research Partners with Developmental Disabilities

Special Issue: Why Ethically Reflect on Empirical Studies in Empirical Ethics? Case Studies and Commentaries

Ethical considerations regarding the inclusion of children in nursing research

Gurus and Griots: Revisiting the research informed consent process in rural African contexts

Grappling With the Inclusion of Patients and the Public in Consensus Building: A Commentary on Inclusion, Safety, and Accessibility; Comment on "Evaluating Public Participation in a Deliberative Dialogue: A Single Case Study"