scholarly journals Facebook Recruitment and the Protection of Human Subjects

2019 ◽  
Vol 41 (9) ◽  
pp. 1270-1281 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kendra Kamp ◽  
Kayla Herbell ◽  
William H. Magginis ◽  
Donna Berry ◽  
Barbara Given
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Data Security ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Belmont Report ◽  
Respect For Persons ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Recruitment Method ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects

Social and behavioral scientists increasingly use Facebook to recruit research participants. Given the everchanging social media landscape, it is important to consider the ethical principles of using such a strategy. The aims of this methodological article are to (a) examine Facebook recruitment in light of the ethical principles of the Belmont Report (respect for persons, beneficence, and justice), (b) describe ethical challenges that may be faced in Facebook recruitment, and (c) provide recommendations for researchers interested in adopting this recruitment method. Ethical challenges inherent in Facebook recruitment include selecting subjects fairly, privacy, and data security. Overall, Facebook is a beneficial resource for recruiting participants into research; however, researchers need to be aware of their responsibility in protecting human subjects.

scholarly journals The Food, Feelings, and Family Study: comparison of the efficacy of traditional methods, social media, and broadcast email to recruit pregnant women to an observational, longitudinal nutrition study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Smith ◽  
Crystal Alvarez ◽  
Sylvia Crixell ◽  
Michelle A. Lane
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Family Study ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Recruitment Method ◽  
Traditional Methods ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Recruitment Methods ◽  
Health Care Intervention ◽  
Time Investment

Abstract Background It is well known that recruitment is a challenging aspect of any study involving human subjects. This challenge is exacerbated when the population sought is reticent to participate in research as is the case with pregnant women and individuals with depression. This paper compares recruitment methods used for the Food, Feelings, and Family Study, an observational, longitudinal pilot study concerning how diet and bisphenol A exposure affect maternal mood and cognitive function during and after pregnancy. Methods Pregnant women were recruited to this study over a period of 15 months using traditional methods, social media including paid and unpaid posts, and emails broadcast to the university community. Contingency analysis using the Pearson’s Chi-square test was used to determine if recruitment method was associated with likelihood of participation. T-tests were used to analyze Facebook advertisement success. ANOVAs and Fisher exact tests were used to determine if recruitment method was related to continuous and categorical demographics, respectively. Results Social media resulted in the largest number of recruits, followed by traditional methods and broadcast email. Women recruited through social media were less likely to participate. In contrast, use of broadcast email resulted in a smaller pool of recruits but these recruits were more likely to be eligible for and complete the study. Most women recruited via social media were the result of unpaid posts to the study’s Facebook page. Paid posts lasting at least 4 days were the most successful. Recruitment method was not associated with participant demographics. Conclusions Social media has the potential to recruit a large pool of potential subjects; however, when studies require a large time investment such as the case here, women recruited through social media are less likely to participate and complete the study than women recruited through other means. Trial registration N/A. This study does not describe a health care intervention.

Developing an ethics framework for living donor transplantation

2018 ◽  
Vol 44 (12) ◽  
pp. 843-850 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lainie F Ross ◽  
J Richard Thistlethwaite
Keyword(s):  
Living Donor ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Vulnerable Groups ◽  
Belmont Report ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
Living Donor Transplantation ◽  
Clinical Benefits

Both living donor transplantation and human subjects research expose one set of individuals to clinical risks for the clinical benefits of others. In the Belmont Report, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavior Research (National Commission) articulated three principles to serve as the basis for a research ethics framework: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. In contrast, living donor transplantation lacks a framework. In this manuscript, we adapt the three principles articulated in the Belmont Report to serve as the foundation for an ethics framework for living donor transplantation which we supplement with the principles of vulnerability and responsibility. The National Commission supported additional protections for vulnerable groups of potential research participants. In 2001, Kenneth Kipnis effectively argued that the concept of vulnerable groups failed to explore in what ways particular groups of people were vulnerable, thereby risking unnecessary protections for some and inadequate protections for others. He proposed a taxonomy that explored different types of vulnerabilities that all research participants may experience to provide a more robust framework for human subjects protections, which we adapt to living donors. Robert Goodin claims that health professionals, who stand in special relationship with patients, are responsible for promoting and protecting their well-being. In living donor transplantation, the donor transplant team is responsible for empowering prospective donors to address their vulnerabilities and/or for protecting those who cannot by disqualifying them from donation.

Integrity in Research

2018 ◽  
pp. 397-416
Author(s):  
Sandra Carvalho ◽  
Gustavo Rivara ◽  
Andre Brunoni ◽  
Felipe Fregni
Keyword(s):  
Human Subjects ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Research Integrity ◽  
Research Process ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Belmont Report ◽  
Subject Selection ◽  
Scientific Report ◽  
Ethics In Research

This chapter discusses authorship, ethics in research, plagiarism, and misconduct. It summarizes the general criteria for scientific report authorship according to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and Ethics in Research. It discusses ethics in research, based on the famous Tuskegee syphilis study, and the Belmont Report that followed it. Three basic ethical principles derived from the Belmont Report—respect for persons, beneficence, and justice—and their impact on research with human subjects are discussed, along with the direct applications of these three ethical principles: informed consent, risk/benefit ratio, and subject selection. Finally, the chapter reviews the main aspects of research misconduct and presents some examples. Research integrity requires that the research process is governed by honesty, objectivity, and verifiable methods, instead of preconceived ideas and expectations. It is an important topic to be reviewed and discussed before anyone decides to pursue the field of clinical research.

scholarly journals A Belmont Report for Animals?

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
HOPE FERDOWSIAN ◽  
L. SYD M JOHNSON ◽  
JANE JOHNSON ◽  
ANDREW FENTON ◽  
ADAM SHRIVER ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
The United States ◽  
Animal Research ◽  
Ethical Principles ◽  
Belmont Report ◽  
National Commission ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Respect For Autonomy

Abstract:Human and animal research both operate within established standards. In the United States, criticism of the human research environment and recorded abuses of human research subjects served as the impetus for the establishment of the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, and the resulting Belmont Report. The Belmont Report established key ethical principles to which human research should adhere: respect for autonomy, obligations to beneficence and justice, and special protections for vulnerable individuals and populations. While current guidelines appropriately aim to protect the individual interests of human participants in research, no similar, comprehensive, and principled effort has addressed the use of (nonhuman) animals in research. Although published policies regarding animal research provide relevant regulatory guidance, the lack of a fundamental effort to explore the ethical issues and principles that should guide decisions about the potential use of animals in research has led to unclear and disparate policies. Here, we explore how the ethical principles outlined in the Belmont Report could be applied consistently to animals. We describe how concepts such as respect for autonomy and obligations to beneficence and justice could be applied to animals, as well as how animals are entitled to special protections as a result of their vulnerability.

Ethical Considerations of Research in Disaster-Stricken Populations

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
John E. Jesus ◽  
Glen E. Michael
Keyword(s):  
Disaster Response ◽  
Disaster Medicine ◽  
Biomedical Ethics ◽  
Respect For Persons ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
The Core

AbstractRecently, emphasis has been placed on improving and expanding research in disaster response and the treatment of disaster-stricken populations. However, research in these settings presents unique ethical challenges with which the scientific and biomedical ethics communities continue to struggle. At the core of the controversy is the question of how best to balance the critical need for research with the equally important obligation to respect and protect the interests of research participants within the unique stress of a disaster. This concern stems from the potential of increased vulnerability of individuals stricken by disaster over and above their usual vulnerability to risk and exploitation as research subjects. Ethical principles that must be considered in these situations are the same as those that are important when conducting any human research: respect for persons, non-maleficence, beneficence, and justice. This paper explores the ethical challenges that accompany inadequate resources and personnel, the potential vulnerability of research participants, the dual role of physician-researcher, and the importance of the public's perception and trust are explored. It then proposes a number of potential avenues through which to conduct ethically justifiable research that could answer many of the pressing questions in disaster medicine and response.

Ensuring Privacy of Participants Recruited via Social Media

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 16-32
Author(s):  
Chandana Unnithan ◽  
Paula M Swatman ◽  
Jo-Anne Kelder
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
National Human ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

Researchers worldwide are increasingly looking to recruit research participants via social media (particularly @Facebook and @Twitter) because they appear to offer access to a wider range of research participants and afford inherently convenient tools for recruitment. In Australia, the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, together with the federal Privacy law and a number of state-based privacy statutes, provide support and guidance for this novel approach. This article offers a preliminary analysis and discussion of this trend from an Australian perspective, illustrated by an enquiry into the ethical challenges posed by social media-based recruitment, conducted in an Australian university in 2015. Leximancer™ was used as an analytical tool and the content from social media sites used for a small number of research studies conducted up to 2015, taken in conjunction with the various national human research ethics guidelines, offered a means of understanding how ethical challenges of privacy and anonymity can be addressed for responsible social media-based research.

Ensuring Privacy of Participants Recruited via Social Media

2020 ◽  
pp. 1537-1555
Author(s):  
Chandana Unnithan ◽  
Paula M Swatman ◽  
Jo-Anne Kelder
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Privacy Law ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Novel Approach ◽  
National Human ◽  
Ethics Guidelines ◽  
Research Ethics Guidelines

Researchers worldwide are increasingly looking to recruit research participants via social media (particularly @Facebook and @Twitter) because they appear to offer access to a wider range of research participants and afford inherently convenient tools for recruitment. In Australia, the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, together with the federal Privacy law and a number of state-based privacy statutes, provide support and guidance for this novel approach. This article offers a preliminary analysis and discussion of this trend from an Australian perspective, illustrated by an enquiry into the ethical challenges posed by social media-based recruitment, conducted in an Australian university in 2015. Leximancer™ was used as an analytical tool and the content from social media sites used for a small number of research studies conducted up to 2015, taken in conjunction with the various national human research ethics guidelines, offered a means of understanding how ethical challenges of privacy and anonymity can be addressed for responsible social media-based research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document