Dataset Information

A method to induce stress in human subjects in online research environments.

ABSTRACT: This paper presents a method to induce stress in human subjects during online participation in research studies without the presence of researchers. In this study, participants in the stress-inducing condition (N = 52, 44%) were asked to answer general knowledge and mathematical questions which people often get wrong, and did so under time pressure as well as receiving feedback. In contrast, participants in the control condition (N = 66, 56%) did not have time pressure or receive feedback. The stress manipulation was found to be effective, as the reported state anxiety and visual analog scale on stress scores were higher for the stress group than for the non-stress group (both findings, p < 0.001). Consistent findings were found when accounting for trait anxiety as a moderator, with the exception of the state anxiety levels in high trait anxiety group. This stressing method combines the established stress conditions of uncontrollability (such as time pressures) and social evaluative threats (such as negative feedback). In addition, the method contains specific measures (such as a commitment statement and attention check questions) to enhance the internal validity by preventing and detecting cheating or random responses. This method can be deployed through any commonly available online software. It offers a simple and cost-effective way to collect data online - which fits the increasing need to carry out research in virtual and online environments.

SUBMITTER: Almazrouei MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9311341 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to explore the outcomes of research engagement (patient engagement, PE) in the context of qualitative research.DesignWe observed engagement in two groups comprised of patients, clinicians and researchers tasked with conducting a qualitative preference exploration project in inflammatory bowel disease. One group was led by a patient research partner (PLG, partner led group) and the other by an academic researcher (RLG, researcher led group). A semistructured guide and a set of critical outcomes of research engagement were used as a framework to ground our analysis.SettingThe study was conducted online.ParticipantsPatient research partners (n=5), researchers (n=5) and clinicians (n=4) participated in this study.Main outcome measuresTranscripts of meetings, descriptive and reflective observation data of engagement during meetings and email correspondence between group members were analysed to identify the outcomes of PE.ResultsBoth projects were patient-centred, collaborative, meaningful, rigorous, adaptable, ethical, legitimate, understandable, feasible, timely and sustainable. Patient research partners (PRPs) in both groups wore dual hats as patients and researchers and influenced project decisions wearing both hats. They took on advisory and operational roles. Collaboration seemed easier in the PLG than in the RLG. The RLG PRPs spent more time than their counterparts in the PLG sharing their experience with biologics and helping their group identify a meaningful project question. A formal literature review informed the design, project materials and analysis in the RLG, while the formal review informed the project materials and analysis in the PLG. A PRP in the RLG and the PLG lead leveraged personal connections to facilitate recruitment. The outcomes of both projects were meaningful to all members of the groups.ConclusionsOur findings show that engagement of PRPs in research has a positive influence on the project design and delivery in the context of qualitative research in both the patient-led and researcher-led group.

Project description:BackgroundHuman Subjects protections approaches, specifically those relating to research review board oversight, vary throughout the world. While all are designed to protect participants involved in research, the structure and specifics of these institutional review boards (IRBs) can and do differ. This variation affects all types of research, particularly implementation research.MethodsIn 2001, we began a series of inter-related studies on implementing evidence-based collaborative care for depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care. We have submitted more than 100 IRB applications, amendments, and renewals, and in doing so, we have interacted with 13 VA and University IRBs across the United States (U.S.). We present four overarching IRB-related themes encountered throughout the implementation of our projects, and within each theme, identify key challenges and suggest approaches that have proved useful. Where applicable, we showcase process aids developed to assist in resolving a particular IRB challenge.ResultsThere are issues unique to implementation research, as this type of research may not fit within the traditional Human Subjects paradigm used to assess clinical trials. Risks in implementation research are generally related to breaches of confidentiality, rather than health risks associated with traditional clinical trials. The implementation-specific challenges discussed are: external validity considerations, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, risk-benefit issues, the multiple roles of researchers and subjects, and system-level unit of analysis.DiscussionSpecific aspects of implementation research interact with variations in knowledge, procedures, and regulatory interpretations across IRBs to affect the implementation and study of best methods to increase evidence-based practice. Through lack of unambiguous guidelines and local liability concerns, IRBs are often at risk of applying both variable and inappropriate or unnecessary standards to implementation research that are not consistent with the spirit of the Belmont Report (a summary of basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and which impede the conduct of evidence-based quality improvement research. While there are promising developments in the IRB community, it is incumbent upon implementation researchers to interact with IRBs in a manner that assists appropriate risk-benefit determinations and helps prevent the process from having a negative impact on efforts to reduce the lag in implementing best practices.

Project description:BackgroundTar spot of corn is a significant and spreading disease in the continental U.S. and Canada caused by the obligate biotrophic fungus Phyllachora maydis. As of 2023, tar spot had been reported in 18 U.S. states and one Canadian Province. The symptoms of tar spot include chlorotic flecking followed by the formation of black stromata where conidia and ascospores are produced. Advancements in research and management for tar spot have been limited by a need for a reliable method to inoculate plants to enable the study of the disease. The goal of this study was to develop a reliable method to induce tar spot in controlled conditions.ResultsWe induced infection of corn by P. maydis in 100% of inoculated plants with a new inoculation method. This method includes the use of vacuum-collection tools to extract ascospores from field-infected corn leaves, application of spores to leaves, and induction of the disease in the dark at high humidity and moderate temperatures. Infection and disease development were consistently achieved in four independent experiments on different corn hybrids and under different environmental conditions in a greenhouse and growth chamber. Disease induction was impacted by the source and storage conditions of spores, as tar spot was not induced with ascospores from leaves stored dry at 25 ºC for 5 months but was induced using ascospores from infected leaves stored at -20 ºC for 5 months. The time from inoculation to stromata formation was 10 to 12 days and ascospores were present 19 days after inoculation throughout our experiments. In addition to providing techniques that enable in-vitro experimentation, our research also provides fundamental insights into the conditions that favor tar spot epidemics.ConclusionsWe developed a method to reliably inoculate corn with P. maydis. The method was validated by multiple independent experiments in which infection was induced in 100% of the plants, demonstrating its consistency in controlled conditions. This new method facilitates research on tar spot and provides opportunities to study the biology of P. maydis, the epidemiology of tar spot, and for identifying host resistance.

Dataset Information

A method to induce stress in human subjects in online research environments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets