Dataset Information

Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Participant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of their work. Therefore, a PLR cohort consisting of 24 self-trackers aimed to: (1) substitute research ethics board procedures with engagement in ethical reflection before and throughout the study and (2) draft principles to encourage further development of the governance and ethical review of PLR.

Methods

A qualitative case study method was used to analyse the ethical reflection process. Participants discussed study risks, risk management strategies and benefits pre-project, during a series of weekly webinars, via individual meetings with the participant-organisers, and during semi-structured interviews at project completion. Themes arising from discussions and interviews were used to draft prospective principles to guide PLR.

Results

Data control, aggregation and identifiability were the most common risks identified. These were addressed by a commitment to transparency among all participants and by establishing participant control via self-collection and self-management of data. Group discussions and resources (eg, assistance with experimental design and data analysis) were the most commonly referenced benefits of participation. Additional benefits included greater understanding of one's physiology and greater ability to structure an experiment. Nine principles were constructed to encourage further development of ethical PLR practices. All participants expressed interest in participating in future PLR.

Conclusions

Projects involving a small number of participants can sustain engagement in ethical reflection among participants and participant-organisers. PLR that prioritises transparency, participant control of data and ongoing risk-to-benefit evaluation is compatible with the principles that underlie traditional ethical review of health research, while being appropriate for a context in which citizen scientists play the central role.

SUBMITTER: Grant AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6500204 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study.

Grant Azure Dominique AD Wolf Gary Isaac GI Nebeker Camille C

BMJ open 20190402 4

<h4>Objectives</h4>Participant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of their work. Therefore, a PLR cohort consisting of 24 self-trackers aimed to: (1) substitute research ethics board procedures with engagement in ethical reflection before and throughout the study ...[more]

PMID: 30944134

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:By participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities. Methods:Respondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65?years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience. Results:The crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews. Conclusion:Common methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study. Trial registration:NICHSR, HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

Project description:The sequence of events in a behaviour change trial involves interactions between research participants and the trial process. Taking part in such a study has the potential to influence the behaviour of the participant, and if it does, this can engender bias in trial outcomes. Since participants' experience has received scant attention, the aim of this study is thus to generate hypotheses about which aspects of the conduct of behaviour change trials might matter most to participants, and thus have potential to alter subsequent behaviours and bias trial outcomesTwenty participants were opportunistically screened for a health compromising behaviour (unhealthy diet, lack of exercise, smoking or alcohol consumption) and recruited if eligible. Semi structured face to face interviews were conducted, after going through the usual processes involved in trial recruitment, baseline assessment and randomisation. Participants were given information on the contents of an intervention or control condition in a behaviour change trial, which was not actually implemented. Three months later they returned to reflect on these experiences and whether they had any effect on their behaviour during the intervening period. Data from the latter interview were analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.The early processes of trial participation raised awareness of unhealthy behaviours, although most reported having had only fleeting intentions to change their behaviour as a result of taking part in this study, in the absence of interventions. However, careful examination of the accounts revealed evidence of subtle research participation effects, which varied according to the health behaviour, and its perceived social acceptability. Participants' relationships with the research study were viewed as somewhat important in stimulating thinking about whether and how to make lifestyle changes.These participants described no dramatic impacts attributable to taking part in this study. This study demonstrates the likely value of well conducted qualitative studies of subtle research participation effects, which may be particularly important to explore for alcohol. Separating unintended influences in trial participation from the effects of behaviour change interventions being evaluated therein is necessary for valid estimates of intervention effects.

Project description:Background: The promise of biobanking and genetic research (BGR) in the context of translational research towards improving public health and personalised medicine has been recognised in India. Worldwide experience has shown that incorporating stakeholders' expectations and values into the governance of BGR is essential to address ethical aspects of BGR. This paper draws on engagement with various stakeholders in the South Indian city of Bengaluru to understand how incorporating people's values and beliefs can inform policy making decisions and strengthen BGR governance within India. Methods: We adopted a qualitative research approach and conducted six focus group discussions with civil society members and seven in-depth interviews with key informants in BGR, identified through a targeted web search and snowballing methods, until data saturation was reached. Data were thematically analysed to identify emergent patterns. Results: Specific themes relating to the ethics and governance of BGR emerged. Fears and uncertainty about future sample and data use, possibilities of discrimination and exploitation in the use of findings and the lack of comprehensive data protection policies in India along with expectations of enhanced contributor agency, control in future use of samples and data, benefit sharing, enhanced utility of samples, sustained BGR and public good, reflected tensions between different stakeholders' values and beliefs. Fair governance processes through an independent governance committee for biobanks and a system of ongoing engagement with stakeholders emerged as best practice towards building trust and respecting diversity of views and values. Conclusions: Ensuring public trust in BGR requires listening to stakeholders' voices, being open to counter narratives, and a commitment to long term engagement embedded in principles of participatory democracy. This is central to a 'people-centred governance framework' involving a negotiated middle ground and an equilibrium of governance which promotes social justice by being inclusive, transparent, equitable, and trustworthy.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Given the history of unethical research in Indigenous communities, there is often apprehension among Indigenous communities toward research carried out by non-Indigenous researchers. We examined the approaches, experiences and motivations among non-Indigenous researchers at a research-intensive Canadian university conducting research with Indigenous communities to understand approaches to ethical research with Indigenous peoples. METHODS:We performed a critical constructivist qualitative study incorporating decolonizing methodologies. We conducted semistructured interviews with 8 non-Indigenous University of Toronto researchers with a research focus/interest related to Indigenous health between August and October 2017. The interviews were transcribed and thematically analyzed through an iterative process. Shared experiences among the researchers were arranged into primary themes. RESULTS:We identified 4 primary themes related to the conduct of Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers: 1) relationships with communities are foundational to the research process, 2) non-Indigenous researchers experience a personal self-reflective journey grounded in reconciliation, allyship and privilege, 3) accepted knowledge frameworks in Indigenous research are familiar to most but are inconsistently applied and 4) institutions act as barriers to and facilitators of ethical conduct of Indigenous research. Four core principles - relationships, trust, humility and accountability - unified the primary themes. INTERPRETATION:We identified strengths and areas for improvement of current policies and practices in Indigenous research by non-Indigenous researchers. Although non-Indigenous researchers value relationships, and their research is informed by Indigenous knowledge, institutional barriers to implementing recommended elements exist, and certain policy statements such as the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 lack applicability to secondary data analysis for some non-Indigenous researchers.

Project description:BackgroundThere are increasing expectations for researchers and knowledge users in the health system to use a research partnership approach, such as integrated knowledge translation, to increase the relevance and use of research findings in health practice, programmes and policies. However, little is known about how health research trainees engage in research partnership approaches such as IKT. In response, the purpose of this scoping review was to map and characterize the evidence related to using an IKT or other research partnership approach from the perspective of health research trainees in thesis and/or postdoctoral work.MethodsWe conducted this scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and Arksey and O'Malley's framework. We searched the following databases in June 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched sources of unpublished studies and grey literature. We reported our findings in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews.ResultsWe included 74 records that described trainees' experiences using an IKT or other research partnership approach to health research. The majority of studies involved collaboration with knowledge users in the research question development, recruitment and data collection stages of the research process. Intersecting barriers to IKT or other research partnerships at the individual, interpersonal and organizational levels were reported, including lack of skills in partnership research, competing priorities and trainees' "outsider" status. We also identified studies that evaluated their IKT approach and reported impacts on partnership formation, such as valuing different perspectives, and enhanced relevance of research.ConclusionOur review provides insights for trainees interested in IKT or other research partnership approaches and offers guidance on how to apply an IKT approach to their research. The review findings can serve as a basis for future reviews and primary research focused on IKT principles, strategies and evaluation. The findings can also inform IKT training efforts such as guideline development and academic programme development.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Advances in medicine rely to a great extent on people's willingness to share their data with researchers. With increasingly widespread use of digital technologies, several Web-based communities have emerged aiming to enable their users to share large amounts of data, some of which can possibly be employed for research purposes by scientists, or to conduct participant-led research (PLR). Scholarship has recently addressed the necessity of interrogating how existing ethical standards can and should be applied and adapted in view of the specificities of such Web-based activities. So far, no study has explored participants' beliefs about and attitudes toward ethical oversight when it comes to platforms that involve medical data sharing. OBJECTIVE:This paper presents the protocol for a survey study aimed at understanding users' beliefs about Web-based data-sharing platforms regarding how research ethics principles should be applied in such a setting. Furthermore, the study aims at quantitatively assessing the relationship between participants' perspectives on ethical oversight and other variables such as previous participation in research, beliefs about data sharing, and attitudes toward self-experimentation. METHODS:We are conducting a Web-based survey with users of a popular Web-based data-sharing platform, Open Humans. The survey has been sent to approximately 4640 users registered for the Open Humans newsletter. To fill out the survey, participants need to have an account on Open Humans. We expect a 5%-10% response rate (between 200 and 400 completed surveys out of approximately 4000 survey invitations sent). Independent variables include past data-sharing behavior and intention, beliefs about data sharing, past participation in research, attitudes toward self-experimentation, perceived knowledge of the platform's guidelines and terms, perceived importance of having transparent guidelines, and governance-related beliefs. The main dependent variable is participants' expectations regarding who should ensure that ethical requirements are met within research projects conducted on open data-sharing platforms, based on Emanuel et al's ethical framework. We will use chi-square tests to assess the relationship between participants' expectations regarding ethical oversight and their past behavior, future intentions, beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge. RESULTS:Data collection started on June 13, 2018. A reminder to fill out the survey was sent to participants in mid-July. We expect to gain insights on users' perspectives on the ethical oversight of Web-based data-sharing platforms and on the associated experiences, beliefs, and sociodemographic characteristics. CONCLUSIONS:When digital tools allow people to engage in PLR including medical data, understanding how people interpret and envision the ethical oversight of their data-sharing practices is crucial. This will be the first study to explore users' perspectives on ethical oversight of Web-based data-sharing platforms. The results will help inform the development of a framework that can be employed for platforms hosting various kinds of research projects to accommodate participants' ethical oversight needs. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID):RR1-10.2196/10939.

Dataset Information

Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets