Case Study 2
Ashley Moody
1) Analyze and discuss the risks and potential benefits of the research study based on the content criteria listed below in the grading criteria.
Various risks in regards to this specific research study include the potential threat to privacy of the participants. This is a concern because of the isolated group of individuals chosen for the initial study. All of the individuals chosen were from the same facility, allowing spectators to potentially identify the individuals because of specific identifiers obtained through the questionnaire. Not only this but the information obtained regarding the participants current behavior relationships may expose other individuals not currently consenting to the study. This could potentially lead to issues with confidentiality as well despite the fact that the individuals signed “consent”. Another major risk would be the potential psychological risks to the acting participants. This study/questionnaire elicits specific answers regarding the participants past traumas. Addressing these sensitive subjects may cause some psychological distress to the individuals. With psychological distress a plausible concern, is it safe for the interviews to be conducted in a “face to face” manner? Personally, this could also be considered a risk as well. Last but not least, all participants involved including the interviewers are simply at risk and vulnerable.
Potential benefits may include that the active participants may reap actual benefits from communicating with another individual in a face to face manner regarding their past traumas. Opening up regarding the traumas may give the participants some relief and reassurance as the interviewers could offer sympathy as well. This type of benefit would be considered “indirect” and extremely difficult to measure amongst participants.
If the research is successful, the study will elicit possible connections between childhood trauma and its effect on interpersonal relations in adulthood (accomplishing the entire purpose of the study). With this knowledge, society could potentially implement various resources to assist children of trauma at a younger age in order to prevent issues as adults in regards to interpersonal relationships, possibly preventing incarceration (its along shot, but slightly plausible).
2) What level of IRB review is needed? Why? Discuss your rationale.
Current federal regulations are currently in place in order to protect research participants. Research is classified as either minimally risky or having “greater than minimal risk”. This specific type of research study would require a full IRB review because the risks involved are quite high for those involved (both participants and interviewers).
Ashley,
One of the considerations the researcher must ponder is upholding the “basic ethical principles” of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. The Belmont report specifies that “research involving human subjects” must provide guidelines to assure that the research is conducted accordingly. Respect for persons has two ethical views 1) persons are to make their own “options and choices” or to be autonomous and 2) to protect persons who have diminished autonomy due to “illness, mental disability, or circumstance that restrict liberty” (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research).
Beneficence is commonly known as “do no harm”. The researcher is aware the participants are at risk for potential harms. The ethical principal requires the researcher to give thoughtful consideration to maximize benefits and reduce risks. Justice is fairness or “what is deserved and all participates are treated equally, with same consideration. It is prudent that the researcher ensure that vulnerable classes of individuals are such as prisoners are not being selected because they are easily manipulated, but to ensure the reasons are rested to the issues being studied (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research).
References
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979, April 9). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Retrieved on June 15, 2018 from: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/belmont-report/read-the-belmont-report/index.html
I also thought that the number of participants was low and the fact that they were all in the same facility was not necessarily in the best interest of the study. Also that the inmates may not have all of the access to privacy within that same facility.
You also mentioned that “Potential benefits may include that the active participants may reap actual benefits from communicating with another individual in a face to face manner regarding their past traumas.” Perhaps this would facilitate some sort of group therapy regarding childhood trauma within the prison. One study conducted by the Justice Policy Institute out of the 93,000 of the children currently incarcerated over 75% of them experienced some sort of childhood trauma (Thomas-Whitfield, 2010). This number in itself helps to prove the point that there is a correlation between childhood trauma and incarceration.
Resources:
Thomas-Whitfield, C. (2010, July 08). Child Trauma Linked To Prison Time. Retrieved from https://jjie.org/2010/07/08/child-trauma-linked-to-prison-time/
As you mentioned, it is crucial for additional resources be made available to the prisoners in order to prevent possible harm to the interviewers and participants. Putting together group therapy would be a good start.
I read the results of a study that is very similar to what this one seems to be trying to achieve. In this study, they stated, “Rates of physical, sexual, and emotional trauma were higher in childhood than adulthood and ranged from 44.7% (physical trauma in childhood) to 4.5% (sexual trauma in adulthood). Trauma exposure was found to be strongly associated with a wide range of behavioral problems and clinical symptoms. Due to the sheer numbers of incarcerated men and the strength of these associations, targeted intervention is critical,” (Wolff & Shi, 2012).
This study included 7,207 inmates housed in 10 different prison facilities in the northeastern United States. I’m not sure why the researchers are using such a small sample for their research in this study, unless it were to lay the foundation for ensuring that specific, appropriate, and necessary interventions for inmates is available if it isn’t already.
The potential for harm to researchers as well as participants is very high, so I agree that this study would require a full review. I also wonder what level of security this facility has, as I would expect there to be different incidence rates of interpersonal relationship problems in maximum security, or even in psychiatric prisons as compared to medium or minimum security prisons.
Wolff, N., & Shi, J. (2012). Childhood and Adult Trauma Experiences of Incarcerated Persons and Their Relationship to Adult Behavioral Health Problems and Treatment. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 9(5), 1908–1926. http://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9051908
Ensuring proper security measures were in place prior to initiating this study would be imperative to protect both the interviewers and the participants.
As I have completed some additional reading regarding this topic, I found myself asking, how would the participants really benefit? During my research I came across an article that discussed an organizations journey to answer just this question. This study showed that by offering research studies to the inmates, additional opportunities were actually made available to the inmates that would likely not be if it weren’t for the study.
Christopher, P. P., Stein, M. D., Johnson, J. E., Rich, J. D., Friedmann, P. D., Clarke, J. G., & Lidz, C. W. (2016). Exploitation of prisoners in clinical research: perceptions of study participants. IRB, 38(1), 7–12. Retrieved on June 21, 2018 from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4793400/
This prompted me to look up some other studies regarding prisoners participating in studies and having improved outcomes. There was a small study done in Vermont where inmates went through a specific program which developed circles of support and accountability (COSA) based on a program set up to work with Canadian prisoners who have committed sex-related crimes. The Vermont inmates who participated had a reduction in recidivism by 27 to 74% as compared to the inmates who did not participate in the study, (Fox, 2013).
The biggest drawback, according to the quantitative report submitted by Dr. Fox is that the COSAs take a long time to set up and become fully functional, as well as requiring funding. Considering the number of incarcerated people in the US is around 2.3 million, (How Many People are Locked Up in the United States?, 2018) a reduction of re-occurrence between 27 and 74% of inmates achieved by investing in those willing to participate in COSAs, could mean a significant change in crime rates across the country.
Fox, K. P. (2013, November). Circles of Support & Accountability: Final Report Prepared for the State of Vermont Department of Corrections. Burlington, VT, United States. Retrieved June 21, 2018, from http://www.doc.state.vt.us/about/reports/circles-of-support-accountability-final-report/view
How Many People are Locked Up in the United States? (2018, March 14). Prison Policy Initiative. Northampton, MA, United States. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/graphs/pie2018.html