"We're already doing this work": ethical research with community-based organizations.
Community-based organizations
Public health
Research ethics
Research personnel
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 09 2022
02 09 2022
Historique:
received:
14
03
2022
accepted:
18
08
2022
entrez:
2
9
2022
pubmed:
3
9
2022
medline:
9
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Public health research frequently relies on collaborations with community-based organizations, and these partnerships can be essential to the success of a project. However, while public health ethics and oversight policies have historically focused on ensuring that individual subjects are protected from unethical or unfair practices, there are few guidelines to protect the organizations which facilitate relationships with - and are frequently composed of - these same vulnerable populations. As universities, governments, and donors place a renewed emphasis on the need for community engaged research to address systematic drivers of health inequity, it is vital that the ways in which research is conducted does not uphold the same intersecting systems of gender, race, and class oppression which led to the very same health inequities of interest. To understand how traditional notions of public health research ethics might be expanded to encompass partnerships with organizations as well as individuals, we conducted qualitative interviews with 39 staff members (executive directors and frontline) at community-based organizations that primarily serve people who use drugs, Black men who have sex with men, and sex workers across the United States from January 2016 - August 2017. We also conducted 11 in-depth interviews with professional academic researchers with experience partnering with CBOs that serve similar populations. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using emergent codes and a priori codes derived from the Belmont Report. The concepts of respect, beneficence, and justice are a starting point for collaboration with CBOs, but participants deepened them beyond traditional regulatory concepts to consider the ethics of relationships, care, and solidarity. These concepts could and should apply to the treatment of organizations that participate in research just as they apply to individual human subjects, although their implementation will differ when applied to CBOs vs individual human subjects. Academic-CBO partnerships are likely to be more successful for both academics and CBOs if academic researchers work to center individual-level relationship building that is mutually respectful and grounded in cultural humility. More support from academic institutions and ethical oversight entities can enable more ethically grounded relationships between academic researchers, academic institutions, and community based organizations.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Public health research frequently relies on collaborations with community-based organizations, and these partnerships can be essential to the success of a project. However, while public health ethics and oversight policies have historically focused on ensuring that individual subjects are protected from unethical or unfair practices, there are few guidelines to protect the organizations which facilitate relationships with - and are frequently composed of - these same vulnerable populations. As universities, governments, and donors place a renewed emphasis on the need for community engaged research to address systematic drivers of health inequity, it is vital that the ways in which research is conducted does not uphold the same intersecting systems of gender, race, and class oppression which led to the very same health inequities of interest.
METHODS
To understand how traditional notions of public health research ethics might be expanded to encompass partnerships with organizations as well as individuals, we conducted qualitative interviews with 39 staff members (executive directors and frontline) at community-based organizations that primarily serve people who use drugs, Black men who have sex with men, and sex workers across the United States from January 2016 - August 2017. We also conducted 11 in-depth interviews with professional academic researchers with experience partnering with CBOs that serve similar populations. Transcripts were analyzed thematically using emergent codes and a priori codes derived from the Belmont Report.
RESULTS
The concepts of respect, beneficence, and justice are a starting point for collaboration with CBOs, but participants deepened them beyond traditional regulatory concepts to consider the ethics of relationships, care, and solidarity. These concepts could and should apply to the treatment of organizations that participate in research just as they apply to individual human subjects, although their implementation will differ when applied to CBOs vs individual human subjects.
CONCLUSIONS
Academic-CBO partnerships are likely to be more successful for both academics and CBOs if academic researchers work to center individual-level relationship building that is mutually respectful and grounded in cultural humility. More support from academic institutions and ethical oversight entities can enable more ethically grounded relationships between academic researchers, academic institutions, and community based organizations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36056309
doi: 10.1186/s12874-022-01713-7
pii: 10.1186/s12874-022-01713-7
pmc: PMC9437384
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
237Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : T32 AI007384
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : U01 HD108787
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIMH NIH HHS
ID : K01 MH112436
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Mar;18(1):93-97
pubmed: 33398674
Lancet. 2019 Feb 9;393(10171):594-600
pubmed: 30739695
Sci Eng Ethics. 2003 Oct;9(4):485-501
pubmed: 14652901
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013 Oct;8(4):1-18
pubmed: 24169417
Am J Community Psychol. 2005 Jun;35(3-4):213-30
pubmed: 15909796
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020 Dec 1;85(4):e67-e69
pubmed: 33136755
J Med Ethics. 1995 Dec;21(6):332-8
pubmed: 8778456
Environ Health Perspect. 2005 Oct;113(10):1463-71
pubmed: 16203263
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Dec;98:371-8
pubmed: 23312301
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13
pubmed: 25951677
Acad Med. 2012 Jul;87(7):975-81
pubmed: 22622206
Career Dev Q. 2021 Dec;69(4):313-325
pubmed: 35463739
Health Res Policy Syst. 2020 Sep 11;18(1):101
pubmed: 32912247
Am J Public Health. 2010 Apr 1;100 Suppl 1:S40-6
pubmed: 20147663
Bull World Health Organ. 2001;79(4):373-4
pubmed: 11357217
BMC Med Ethics. 2018 Jun 15;19(Suppl 1):44
pubmed: 29945597
J Urban Health. 2007 Jul;84(4):478-93
pubmed: 17436114
Health Promot Pract. 2006 Jul;7(3):312-23
pubmed: 16760238
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2019;13(4):427-434
pubmed: 31866597
Am J Public Health. 2013 Dec;103(12):e7-e14
pubmed: 24134352