Case study 2

In case study 2, the purpose was to analyze the relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and the effect on interpersonal relationships in adulthood. They took 30 incarcerated participants from a US correctional facility. They used random sampling. The participants were given the option to decline participation in the study. The participants did sign a consent. There really was minimal risk to the researcher and society. One risk to the researcher is that the population surveyed is a vulnerable population. Getting incarcerated participants to talk about a childhood traumatic experience might be tough. That is a hard subject to openly talk about, especially face to face. Risks to the participant includes facing a horrible experience all over again. This could cause psychological harm. Feeling of unease and loneliness and other feelings could come back to the participant. Another risk is that the participant may not be open to talk about the experience face to face. A telephone interview might be better. A telephone interview may have gotten more people to talk, if they wanted more participants.

If this study proved that there is a relationship between traumatic childhood experiences and interpersonal relationships in adulthood, then maybe we could find ways to have better relationships in our adult lives. We might could discover that counseling these people could help them have better relationships as an adult. That would be a benefit for society. The benefit to the researcher in this study is that if the participants are willing to talk about their traumatic experiences then they get the answers they want right away. That is a benefit to the face to face interview. The benefits for the participants is that it gives them the opportunity to talk about the experience. The interview provides them time to address their feelings. Another benefit is that they are in a controlled setting so they will feel safe.

The level of IRB review needed is full board. A full board is required when the risk is more than minimal to the participant. Protection of the participants is very important. The purpose of the IRB review board is to protect the participants. Anytime you have a vulnerable population, such as children, prisoners, handicapped, then a full board review is required. It is important in analyzing and studying that we remember our ethical responsibilities. We must have respect for all persons involved. Duty of beneficence is important. We must keep the benefit-to-harm ratio at a maximum. Justice is also important. Duty of justice is making sure that the burdens and benefits of the research are assigned fairly.

Heflin, Mitchell T. MD, MHS; DeMeo, Stephen DO, MED; Nagler, Alisa JD, EdD, MA; Hockenberry, Marilyn J, PhD, RN, PPCNP-BC, FAAN (2016). Health Professions Education Research and the Institutional Review Board. Nurse Educator, 41(2), 55-59. doi:10.1097/NNE.0000000000000230

Moon, Margaret R., MD, MPH (2009). The History and Role of Institutional Review Boards: A Useful Tension. AMA Journal of Ethics. doi:10.1001/virtualmentor.2009.11.4.pforl-0904