In Case Study 2, the investigators analyzed the relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. Thirty participants incarcerated in a Midwestern United States correctional facility were chosen using random sampling. Individuals were given the opportunity to decline participation in the study. Individuals who chose to participate signed a consent form. A detailed questionnaire was given addressing personal demographic data (e.g. age, sex, race, education level), type of trauma experienced, and interpersonal relationship behaviors. Interviewers administered the questionnaire in a face-to-face interview.
There are several risks of this research study that I can see. The Belmont Report (1979) points out that prisoners should not be deprived of the ability to volunteer. There should be protections in place to ensure that volunteering has not been coerced or unduly influenced. Another risk is that prisoners with a significant trauma history present with a greater risk of behavioral problems which can create a security risk with face-to-face interviews (Reingle Gonzalez & Connell, 2014). This could put the interviewer in danger when revisiting traumatic childhood experiences. According to an article on the Kenyon College website titled Examples of Risks in Social Science/Behavioral Research, recalling traumatic events can cause additional suffering to the participants of the study. These factors may lead to more risk than benefit. Further risk to both the researcher and participant is if the collected demographic data provides too much identifying data for the given population.
The potential benefit of this study to the prisoners involved would be if they receive counseling as part of the research (Research Involving Human Participants V1, 2006). This can help them to see the link between their traumatic childhood experiences and their interpersonal relationship behaviors. Those realizations and initial counseling may lead them to seek further counseling support to learn to cope with the traumatic experiences. There is a benefit to society as the relationship of traumatic childhood experiences and interpersonal relationships are discovered. On the contrary, with the study population being restricted to individuals incarcerated, this may limit the benefit to society.
According to the John Carroll University IRB investigator guide, this study would require a full board review. This is because it involves prisoners. It is the duty of the IRB to protect the study subjects (Moon, 2009). Prisoners are a vulnerable population because their incarceration has the potential to limit their autonomy.
Examples of Risks in Social Science/Behavioral Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kenyon.edu/directories/offices-services/office-of-the-provost/conducting-research-at-kenyon/institutional-research-board-irb/information-for-researchers/assessing-risks-and-benefits/examples-of-risks-in-social-sciencebehavioral-research/
Reingle Gonzalez, J. M., & Connell, N. M. (2014). Mental health of prisoners: identifying barriers to mental health treatment and medication continuity. American journal of public health, 104(12), 2328–2333. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302043
The Belmont Report (Rep.). (1979, April 9). Retrieved https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Chapter 4: Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). (2006). Accessed: Sunday, February 2, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx
STEP ONE: Before You Begin: INVESTIGATORS’ GUIDE. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://jcu.edu/research/irb/investigators-guide/step-one-you-begin?_ga=2.251524099.481090428.1580662250-2023182245.1580662250
Moon, M. R. (2009). The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards. AMA Journal of Ethics, 11(4), 311–321. doi: 10.1001/virtualmentor.2009.11.4.pfor1-0904
Hello Tammy,
I am in agreement with your IRB Full Board Review. It clearly states in the literature STEP ONE: Before you Begin, under the Full Board heading, that prisoners are included in this category of research.
The Belmont Report discusses the risks and benefits from studies using institutionalized participants. I couldn’t quite tell your position on risks and benefits. I see that you listed risk benefits but I was unable to determine if you concluded the risks were minimal or more than minimal. Did you feel like the research was justified?
Prisoner research certainly has the potential for high risk for the the researcher or its at least more than minimal. Prisoners also have the potential to be abused without the precautions that the basic principles of 1) respect for persons, 2) beneficence, and 3)justice demand as outlined in the Belmont Report. Tammy, you mentioned the potential benefits to the prisoner if they received counseling after the interview, as well as the potential harm to the researcher and the participant that reliving tramatic events can cause. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (NCPHSBBR) addressed the ethics of research involving prisioners. The commission focused on respect for persons and justice as the two key ethical considerations guiding their recommendations. One of the issues discussed in the NCPHSBBR report was whether prisoners bear a fair share of the burdens of research and receive a fair share of the benefits.
Tammy, do you have an opinion after researching on whether prisoners should be used or not?
The NCPHSBBR gave examples of pro and con for using prisoners for research: pro: Prisoners want access to innovative intervention programs. They want to change. The article quotes Olga Grinstead, PH.D., “From the issue of equity or the issue of justice, there are advantages to being involved in research… They are motivated to give back, and that should be taken into account too.” The con is: as quoted by Daniel Murphy, PH.D, who himself is a former prisoner but now professor in the Department of Political Science and Justice Studies at Appalachian State University, “What is the allure to this population, if it is not the fact that it is a controlled population?” Dr. Murphy also states that there are 275 million people in this country as compared to 2 million prisosners and why not use the 275 since their numbers are so much greater.
I’m for research with prisoners as long as the IRB’s and precautions and regulations are inforced. I believe that prisons should include rehabiliation and not just punishment. With the health care system we have in the United States, this population is not likely to get the help once they are released. Without correction of their past behaviors and some insight into the choices that landed them there in the first place, I do not see high hopes for improvements.
Thanks for your thoughts and I look forward to your reply.
Loretta Gayle Bergman
To answer your first question, if I feel like the research was justified, the answer is no. I believe the risks outweigh the benefits in this study. The risks of recalling traumatic events can cause additional suffering to the participants of the study according to an article from Kenyon College (n.d.). There are not adequate mental health services within prisons to handle to the present need of inmates (Kjelsberg, 2006). Therefore, to open significant trauma history in this population has a greater potential to cause more harm than good. There is nothing mentioned in the case study of what protocols would be in place to balance the risks. With more information, my answer may be different. However, with the limited information provided I do feel it is not a study that is justified.
In response to your second question, if I believe research shows prisoners should be used for studies, the answer is both yes and no. There are some studies that would provide a greater benefit than risk. For this specific case study, that is not the case as I explained in the above paragraph. It is for that reason I am glad there is the requirement of a full board review when a study involves prisoners. Studies involving prisoners should be limited and that is why a full board review is necessary.
Thank you for the excellent questions and feedback. It is good to be able to look back and see what I can improve upon.
Examples of Risks in Social Science/Behavioral Research. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.kenyon.edu/directories/offices-services/office-of-the-provost/conducting-research-at-kenyon/institutional-research-board-irb/information-for-researchers/assessing-risks-and-benefits/examples-of-risks-in-social-sciencebehavioral-research/
Kjelsberg, E., Hartvig, P., Bowitz, H., Kuisma, I., Norbech, P., Rustad, A.-B., … Vik, T.-G. (2006). Mental health consultations in a prison population: a descriptive study. BMC Psychiatry, 6(1). doi: 10.1186/1471-244x-6-27
A full board review should be used in a scenario such as this, especially using both sensitive information and prisoners. We are you using humans and their most vulnerable events for research. It would be cruel unless protections were put in place to ensure that volunteers are being coerced or unduly influenced. Also, stirring up undesirable memories and feelings can lead to emotional outbursts. We should be prepared for some of the prisoners to act out and have safety plans in place for protection of anyone in the interview. Although, I could see where you would say the research would be limited due to using prisoners. It could be seen as beneficial. Some of the prisoners will eventually be released back into society. If they counseling helps them work through traumatic experiences in their life – maybe they could be better members of society the second time. Also, it might encourage them to use counseling sooner.
Exempt, Expedited and Full Review. (Aug 2019.). Retrieved from https://irb.unca.edu/exempt-expedited-and-full-review
https://your.yale.edu/sites/default/files/irb-policy-320-irb-review-and-approval-participation-prisoners-research.pdf