How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study

Stephanie Taplin; Jenny Chalmers; Judith Brown; Tim Moore; Anne Graham; Morag McArthur

doi:10.1177/15562646221087530

Back

How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study

Journal article

Peer reviewed

How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study

Stephanie Taplin, Jenny Chalmers, Judith Brown, Tim Moore, Anne Graham and Morag McArthur

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol.17(3), pp.254-266

07/2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646221087530

PMID: 35301891

Appears in Recent Faculty of Health Publications

Files and links (1)

url

How do Research Ethics Committee MembersView

Published (Version of record)

Metrics

10 Record Views

6 Times Cited - Web of Science

See more details

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

Source: InCites

Abstract

IRB performance/quality/assessment/evaluation

benefits

justice/participant selection/inclusion/recruitment

and burdens of research/ beneficence and nonMaleficence

decision making capacity/surrogate decision makers

behavioral social science research

research ethics committee/IRB review

payment for research participation

risks

children and adolescent/pediatrics

vignette studies

parental consent/child assent

Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members’ approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research.

Details

Title: How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study
Creators: Stephanie Taplin - Australian Catholic University
Jenny Chalmers - University of New South Wales
Judith Brown - Australian Catholic University
Tim Moore - University of South Australia
Anne Graham - Southern Cross University
Morag McArthur - Australian Catholic University
Publication Details: Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, Vol.17(3), pp.254-266
Publisher: Sage Publications, Inc.
Grant note: This work was supported by the Australian Research Council, (grant number DP150100864).
Identifiers: 991013004293402368
Academic Unit: Centre for Children and Young People; Faculty of Health
Language: English
Resource Type: Journal article

How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study

Files and links (1)

Metrics

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Abstract

Details

Southern Cross University Social media