Dataset Information

Conducting focus groups in neurodegenerative disease populations: ethical and methodological considerations.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Involvement of vulnerable populations in research is critical to inform the generalisability of evidence-based medicine to all groups of the population.

Objective

In this communication, we reflect on our previous research, and that of other authors, to identify and explore key ethical and methodological considerations.

Discussion

Focus groups are a widely implemented qualitative methodology, but their use, particularly in vulnerable neurodegenerative disease populations, is not straightforward. Although the risk of harm is generally low in focus group research, neurodegenerative disease populations are particularly vulnerable to issues relating to comprehension and their capacity to consent. Physical and cognitive impairments may also affect social interactions among participants and therefore impact data collection and analyses.

Conclusion

We offer a number of ethical and methodological recommendations to facilitate the processes of recruitment and data collection when conducting focus groups with neurodegenerative disease populations.

SUBMITTER: Jones A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7812104 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Conducting focus groups in neurodegenerative disease populations: ethical and methodological considerations.

Jones Annabel A Morgan-Jones Philippa P Busse Monica M Shepherd Victoria V Wood Fiona F

BMJ open 20210113 1

<h4>Background</h4>Involvement of vulnerable populations in research is critical to inform the generalisability of evidence-based medicine to all groups of the population.<h4>Objective</h4>In this communication, we reflect on our previous research, and that of other authors, to identify and explore key ethical and methodological considerations.<h4>Discussion</h4>Focus groups are a widely implemented qualitative methodology, but their use, particularly in vulnerable neurodegenerative disease popu ...[more]

PMID: 33441358

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSevere complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has high mortality, thought due in part to progressive bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Treatment includes early antibiotics and operative source control. At surgery, open abdomen management with negative-peritoneal-pressure therapy (NPPT) has been hypothesized to mitigate MOF and death, although clinical equipoise for this operative approach exists. The Closed or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095) will prospectively randomize eligible patients intra-operatively to formal abdominal closure or OA with NPTT. We review the ethical basis for conducting research in SCIAS.Main bodyResearch in critically ill incapacitated patients is important to advance care. Conducting research among SCIAS is complicated due to the severity of illness including delirium, need for emergent interventions, diagnostic criteria confirmed only at laparotomy, and obtundation from anaesthesia. In other circumstances involving critically ill patients, clinical experts have worked closely with ethicists to apply principles that balance the rights of patients whilst simultaneously permitting inclusion in research. In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement-2 (TCPS-2) describes six criteria that permit study enrollment and randomization in such situations: (a) serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention; (b) either no standard efficacious care exists or the research offers realistic possibility of direct benefit; (c) risks are not greater than that involved in standard care or are clearly justified by prospect for direct benefits; (d) prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the complexities of the research; (e) third-party authorization cannot be secured in sufficient time; and (f) no relevant prior directives are known to exist that preclude participation. TCPS-2 criteria are in principle not dissimilar to other (inter)national criteria. The COOL study will use waiver of consent to initiate enrollment and randomization, followed by surrogate or proxy consent, and finally delayed informed consent in subjects that survive and regain capacity.ConclusionsA delayed consent mechanism is a practical and ethical solution to challenges in research in SCIAS. The ultimate goal of consent is to balance respect for patient participants and to permit participation in new trials with a reasonable opportunity for improved outcome and minimal risk of harm.

Project description:BackgroundMuch research is being carried out using publicly available Twitter data in the field of public health, but the types of research questions that these data are being used to answer and the extent to which these projects require ethical oversight are not clear.ObjectiveThis review describes the current state of public health research using Twitter data in terms of methods and research questions, geographic focus, and ethical considerations including obtaining informed consent from Twitter handlers.MethodsWe implemented a systematic review, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, of articles published between January 2006 and October 31, 2019, using Twitter data in secondary analyses for public health research, which were found using standardized search criteria on SocINDEX, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Studies were excluded when using Twitter for primary data collection, such as for study recruitment or as part of a dissemination intervention.ResultsWe identified 367 articles that met eligibility criteria. Infectious disease (n=80, 22%) and substance use (n=66, 18%) were the most common topics for these studies, and sentiment mining (n=227, 62%), surveillance (n=224, 61%), and thematic exploration (n=217, 59%) were the most common methodologies employed. Approximately one-third of articles had a global or worldwide geographic focus; another one-third focused on the United States. The majority (n=222, 60%) of articles used a native Twitter application programming interface, and a significant amount of the remainder (n=102, 28%) used a third-party application programming interface. Only one-third (n=119, 32%) of studies sought ethical approval from an institutional review board, while 17% of them (n=62) included identifying information on Twitter users or tweets and 36% of them (n=131) attempted to anonymize identifiers. Most studies (n=272, 79%) included a discussion on the validity of the measures and reliability of coding (70% for interreliability of human coding and 70% for computer algorithm checks), but less attention was paid to the sampling frame, and what underlying population the sample represented.ConclusionsTwitter data may be useful in public health research, given its access to publicly available information. However, studies should exercise greater caution in considering the data sources, accession method, and external validity of the sampling frame. Further, an ethical framework is necessary to help guide future research in this area, especially when individual, identifiable Twitter users and tweets are shared and discussed.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020148170; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148170.

Dataset Information

Conducting focus groups in neurodegenerative disease populations: ethical and methodological considerations.

Background

Objective

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

Conducting focus groups in neurodegenerative disease populations: ethical and methodological considerations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets