In case study two, investigators analyzed the relationship between trauma in childhood and the effect on interpersonal relationships as an adult. Thirty incarcerated participants from the Midwest were randomly chosen. They were given the option to decline to participate in the study. Those who did choose to participate signed a consent form. A questionnaire was given to obtain personal demographics, trauma and interpersonal relationship behaviors. The questionnaire was administered in face to face interviews.
The benefits to this research study are quite limited. The benefits to the researcher may give some correlation between childhood trauma and adult relationship patterns. Another benefit to the researcher may be that during a face to face interview, the participant may provide subjective data or personal feelings that may help the researcher understand the issues on a more personal level. The potential benefit for the participant would be to express feelings, feel less burdened, and feel as though they are being heard. Prisoners very rarely get adequate access to mental health treatment, (The Marshall Project, 2018). The benefit to society could potentially be treating children and adults that have experienced childhood trauma with different treatments to promote healthy interpersonal relationships as adults.
The risks to this study are very substantial. The information that researchers gain from this study is mostly subjective. In addition, the sampling size is thirty people, which is relatively small when researching data with this much information over many years. Also, the sampling size, while “random” is only incarcerated participants from one area of the country. The risks are abundant including threats to privacy and psychological risks. When conducting a face to face interview about sensitive subject matters the risk is more than minimal. The risks to the participant would be primarily from discussing the sensitive material during an interview, possibly without any follow-up on their mental health. The risks to the researcher would be potential violence depending on how the interviews were arranged with security. People with types of mental illness could be interviewed and there may not be a way to predict how safe an interview may be. The risk for society is setting criteria and implementing changes is treatment based on such a weak study. Another risk is altering the data collection and storage. This is subject to how judgmental the researcher is that would be conducting the interviews. It is a potential risk to have biases of the interviewer transcend onto the data collection and research.
The level of Institutional Review Board approval needed would be a full board review. According to John Carroll University, a full board review is needed when topics for investigation include prisoners, illegal activities, substance abuse, sexual orientation, criminal history, etc. All these issues could potentially be researched in the case study. According to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission, any research involving more than a minimal risk, requires a full IRB review, and the protections for participants becomes stricter, for example, more than just a signed consent (The National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2016).
References:
Chapter 4: Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). (2016, February 1). Retrieved from https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx#risks
Moon, M. (2009, April 01). The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards: A Useful Tension. Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/history-and-role-institutional-review-boards-useful-tension/2009-04
STEP ONE: Before You Begin: INVESTIGATORS’ GUIDE. (2019). Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://jcu.edu/research/irb/investigators-guide/step-one-you-begin
Thompson, C. (2018, November 21). Why So Few Federal Prisoners Get The Mental Health Care They Need. Retrieved January 31, 2020, from https://www.themarshallproject.org/2018/11/21/treatment-denied-the-mental-health-crisis-in-federal-prisons
Christine,
I agree that there is little benefit from this study but many potential risks to the participants. Your assertion that researchers would really only be able to make correlational statements from this data is correct since there doesn’t appear to be a control group with which to compare results so investigators can’t make comparisons other than between those prisoners who have trauma in their backgrounds and those who don’t. This is more like early investigations that ask the question “does a relationship exist between two conditions”.
One of the primary risks to the participant is negative behavioral changes following trauma recall. In a prison system, negative behavioral changes can cause trouble for the prisoner who is acting out violently and for those on the receiving end of that violence. This seems to be a significant with high costs to all parties involved. The lack of comparison groups severely limits the usefulness of this study. The limited benefits and significant risks to participants and society are some of the things the IRB is in place to prevent. The study requires a full IRB review because of the proposed use of prisoners (U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 2003).
Resources
U.S Department of Health and Human Services, 45 CFR 46.305, 306 (2003) Retrieved from https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/prisoner-research-ohrp-guidance-2003/index.html