Human Subjects Protections in Community-Engaged Research

A Research Ethics Framework

Datos Bibliográficos

ID12806958
AutoresLainie Friedman Ross (0000-0002-7395-3000, University of Chicago, autor de correspondencia), Allan Loup, Robert M Nelson (0000-0002-7856-555X, Food and Drug Administration), Jeffrey R Botkin (0000-0002-7897-5153, University of Utah), Rhonda G Kost (0000-0002-5419-0589, Rockefeller University), George R Smith (0000-0002-4073-4979), Sarah Gehlert (0000-0001-6969-9882)
Año2010
Volumen5
Número1
Páginas5-17
Fecha de publicación2010-03-01
Peer ReviewedSí
Open AccessSí
TipoARTICLE
RevistaJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JOURNAL)
Identificadores de la revistaISSN: 1556-2646 • E-ISSN: 1556-2654
EditorialSAGE Publishing (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.5
PMID20235860
PMCIDPMC2946318
OpenAlexW2170817904
IdiomaEN
Citas recibidas35
Referencias citadas19

In the 30 years since the Belmont Report, the role of the community in research has evolved and has taken on greater moral significance. Today, more and more translational research is being performed with the active engagement of individuals and communities rather than merely upon them. This engagement requires a critical examination of the range of risks that may arise when communities become partners in research. In attempting to provide such an examination, one must distinguish between established communities (groups that have their own organizational structure and leadership and exist regardless of the research) and unstructured groups (groups that may exist because of a shared trait but do not have defined leadership or internal cohesiveness). In order to participate in research as a community, unstructured groups must develop structure either by external means (by partnering with a Community-Based Organization) or by internal means (by empowering the group to organize and establish structure and leadership). When groups participate in research, one must consider risks to well-being due to process and outcomes. These risks may occur to the individual qua individual, but there are also risks that occur to the individual qua member of a group and also risks that occur to the group qua group. There are also risks to agency, both to the individual and the group. A 3-by-3 grid including 3 categories of risks (risks to well-being secondary to process, risks to well-being secondary to outcome and risks to agency) must be evaluated against the 3 distinct agents: individuals as individual participants, individuals as members of a group (both as participants and as nonparticipants) and to communities as a whole. This new framework for exploring the risks in community-engaged research can help academic researchers and community partners ensure the mutual respect that community-engaged research requires

Alternative medicine · Cognitive science · Engineering ethics · Ethics committee · Human research · Informed consent · Political science · Public relations · Research ethics · Research integrity · Sociology · Engineering · Ethics in Clinical Research · Health Policy Implementation Science · Medicine · Mental Health and Patient Involvement · Psychology · Public Administration