Dataset Information

Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research.

ABSTRACT: The urgent need to expand enrollment in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) research has synergized calls for an empiric science of research recruitment, yet, progress in this area is hindered by challenges to measuring views toward ADRD research. This paper reports ethical and methodological considerations identified through a prospective qualitative study investigating ADRD patient and caregiver views on research recruitment and participation surrounding acute illness. Ethical and methodological considerations were identified through a combination of memoing, collaboration with a Community Advisory Board (CAB), and analysis of interview data from ADRD patients (N = 3) and/or caregivers (N = 28). These included risk for undue influence attributable to role ambiguity/motivational misconceptions, divergent decision-making preferences, bias contributing to low referrals of ADRD participants, and difficulty answering abstract/hypothetical questions. Many considerations were successfully addressed with multifaceted, proactive strategies, and CAB input. Findings have implications for recruitment science research and the validity of inferences regarding research preferences.

SUBMITTER: Benson C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8035267 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb-Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research.

Benson Clark C Friz Amanda A Mullen Shannon S Block Laura L Gilmore-Bykovskyi Andrea A

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20201126 1-2

The urgent need to expand enrollment in Alzheimer's disease and related dementia (ADRD) research has synergized calls for an empiric science of research recruitment, yet, progress in this area is hindered by challenges to measuring views toward ADRD research. This paper reports ethical and methodological considerations identified through a prospective qualitative study investigating ADRD patient and caregiver views on research recruitment and participation surrounding acute illness. Ethical and ...[more]

PMID: 33238781

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundDeveloping, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion requires dealing with all stakeholders involved, such as employers, employees, occupational physicians, insurance companies, providers, labour unions and research and knowledge institutes. Although worksite health promotion is becoming more common, empirical research on ethical considerations of worksite health promotion is scarce.MethodsWe explored the views of stakeholders involved in worksite health promotion in focus group discussions and we described the ethical considerations that result from differences between these views. The focus group discussions were organised per stakeholder group. Data were analysed according to the constant comparison method.ResultsOur analyses show that although the definition of occupational health is the same for all stakeholders, namely 'being able to perform your job', there seem to be important differences in the views on what constitutes a risk factor to occupational health. According to the employees, risk factors to occupational health are prevailingly job-related. Labour unions agree with them, but other stakeholders, including the employer, particularly see employee-related issues such as lifestyle behaviour as risk factors to occupational health. The difference in definition of occupational health risk factors translates into the same categorisation of worksite health promotion; employee-related activities and work-related activities. The difference in conceptualisation of occupational health risk factors and worksite health promotion resonates in the way stakeholders understand 'responsibility' for lifestyle behaviour. Even though all stakeholders agree on whose responsibility lifestyle behaviour is, namely that of the employee, the meaning of 'responsibility' differs between employees, and employers. For employees, responsibility means autonomy, while for employers and other stakeholders, responsibility equals duty. This difference may in turn contribute to ambivalent relationships between stakeholders.ConclusionAll stakeholders, including employees, should be given a voice in developing, implementing and evaluating worksite health promotion. Moreover, since stakeholders agree on lifestyle being the responsibility of the employee, but disagree on what this responsibility means (duty versus autonomy), it is of utmost importance to examine the discourse of stakeholders. This way, ambivalence in relationships between stakeholders could be prevented.

Dataset Information

Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research.

Publications

Ethical and Methodological Considerations for Evaluating Participant Views on Alzheimer's and Dementia Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets