Case Study 2
In case study number two inmates are asked to discuss traumatic childhood experiences and how those experiences have affected adult relationships. The potential risks of this study include the fact that sensitive topics are being asked by the surveyor. This has the potential for adverse reaction and outcomes due to the trauma experienced by the study subject. When trauma is highlighted people can react with a rainbow of emotions including anger, this could lead to behaviors. These behaviors could potentially leave the surveyor in a vulnerable situation.
There are several benefits in the type of study. The potential of an individual to heal from a childhood trauma and be able to change negative adult relationships to positive relationships is a significant benefit to the participant. This can also be a benefit to society. When people that have been negatively affected by trauma can contribute to society in a positive manner that is a benefit. Also, random selection was used in this study. In random selection everyone has the same opportunity to be selected. This type of sampling is easy and is accurate and is seen as a benefit as well. Another benefit is the allowance of inmates to accept or decline participation. As stated in the Belmont report, “Respect for persons requires that subjects, to the degree that they are capable, be given the opportunity to choose what shall or shall not happen to them. This opportunity is provided when adequate standards for informed consent are satisfied”. In order to get useful data, interviewing those that have the drive to answer question open and honestly is a benefit to the study. The last benefit I see is the consenting of the participants that have agreed to participate. This protect both the surveyor and the study subject. The study subject is given detailed information about the study and can make an informed decision to participate or decline. This also protects the researchers in the same manner with a legal document obtaining the consent from an individual to participate.
In case study number two, due to the sensitive nature of the research and the population that is being surveyed a full board level review is required. This study could cause more than a minimal risk to its subject. There is sensitive information that is being asked to a vulnerable population of individuals such as inmates in a correctional facility.
The Belmont Report (Rep.). (1979, April 9). Retrieved https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html
Types of IRB Review. (n.d.). Retrieved November 14, 2017, from http://sites.jcu.edu/research/pages/irb/review/review-types/
I agree with you that this study should reserve a full board level of IRB review because the study results could cause more than minimal risk to individual participants. In this study, there is a potential risk not only to individuals participants but also to the investigators, close family, social group, and society as a whole (National Bioethics Advisory Commission, 2006). For the investigators, listening to traumatic childhood experiences could be very heartfelt; therefore, investigators would be affected psychologically. The family and close friends would be emotionally affected by the reminder of the situations. There would be social segments between groups in the community, depending on which race or educational level the individuals could have a higher level of trauma in their childhood experience. There is a benefit of signing a consent form but according to the National Bioethics Advisory Commission (2006), participants of the study may be subject of use in morally unacceptable for the sake of other people who are economically advantaged even though the consent is signed.
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2006, June 13). Assessing Risks and Potential Benefits and Evaluating Vulnerability (Research Involving Human Participants V1). https://www.onlineethics.org/cms/8033.aspx
Again, this was kind of a slam dunk needing a full board level of IRB review because the study results could cause more than minimal risk to individual participants, involved prisoners, and sensitive information regarding traumatic childhood events.
In this study, there’s a potential risk to effect participants, interviewers, guards, and families of the participants, and other inmates in the facility. Any time sensitive information is being used – you have a risk of people acting out. Allowing the prisoners to discuss their events and feelings could lead to closure for the participants leading to life changes for the better. It may also open doors to new friends who have gone through similar events in their life.
Do you feel like the information was limited due to only using this population?
I do agree that the population surveyed was limited. According to the Belmont report the incarcerated population should be avoided when no therapeutic component exists. In this case study you could argue that there could be a therapeutic outcome.
“Some populations, especially institutionalized ones, are already burdened in many ways by their infirmities and environments. When research is proposed that involves risks and does not include a therapeutic component, other less burdened classes of persons should be called upon first to accept these risks of research, except where the research is directly related to the specific conditions of the class involved”.
The Belmont Report (Rep.). (1979, April 9). Retrieved https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/index.html