Cargando…

Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study

OBJECTIVES: Participant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of t...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Grant, Azure Dominique, Wolf, Gary Isaac, Nebeker, Camille
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6500204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025633
_version_ 1783415901837590528
author Grant, Azure Dominique
Wolf, Gary Isaac
Nebeker, Camille
author_facet Grant, Azure Dominique
Wolf, Gary Isaac
Nebeker, Camille
author_sort Grant, Azure Dominique
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Participant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of their work. Therefore, a PLR cohort consisting of 24 self-trackers aimed to: (1) substitute research ethics board procedures with engagement in ethical reflection before and throughout the study and (2) draft principles to encourage further development of the governance and ethical review of PLR. METHODS: A qualitative case study method was used to analyse the ethical reflection process. Participants discussed study risks, risk management strategies and benefits pre-project, during a series of weekly webinars, via individual meetings with the participant-organisers, and during semi-structured interviews at project completion. Themes arising from discussions and interviews were used to draft prospective principles to guide PLR. RESULTS: Data control, aggregation and identifiability were the most common risks identified. These were addressed by a commitment to transparency among all participants and by establishing participant control via self-collection and self-management of data. Group discussions and resources (eg, assistance with experimental design and data analysis) were the most commonly referenced benefits of participation. Additional benefits included greater understanding of one’s physiology and greater ability to structure an experiment. Nine principles were constructed to encourage further development of ethical PLR practices. All participants expressed interest in participating in future PLR. CONCLUSIONS: Projects involving a small number of participants can sustain engagement in ethical reflection among participants and participant-organisers. PLR that prioritises transparency, participant control of data and ongoing risk-to-benefit evaluation is compatible with the principles that underlie traditional ethical review of health research, while being appropriate for a context in which citizen scientists play the central role.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6500204
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65002042019-05-21 Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study Grant, Azure Dominique Wolf, Gary Isaac Nebeker, Camille BMJ Open Ethics OBJECTIVES: Participant-led research (PLR) is a rapidly developing form of citizen science in which individuals can create personal and generalisable knowledge. Although PLR lacks a formal framework for ethical review, participants should not be excused from considering the ethical implications of their work. Therefore, a PLR cohort consisting of 24 self-trackers aimed to: (1) substitute research ethics board procedures with engagement in ethical reflection before and throughout the study and (2) draft principles to encourage further development of the governance and ethical review of PLR. METHODS: A qualitative case study method was used to analyse the ethical reflection process. Participants discussed study risks, risk management strategies and benefits pre-project, during a series of weekly webinars, via individual meetings with the participant-organisers, and during semi-structured interviews at project completion. Themes arising from discussions and interviews were used to draft prospective principles to guide PLR. RESULTS: Data control, aggregation and identifiability were the most common risks identified. These were addressed by a commitment to transparency among all participants and by establishing participant control via self-collection and self-management of data. Group discussions and resources (eg, assistance with experimental design and data analysis) were the most commonly referenced benefits of participation. Additional benefits included greater understanding of one’s physiology and greater ability to structure an experiment. Nine principles were constructed to encourage further development of ethical PLR practices. All participants expressed interest in participating in future PLR. CONCLUSIONS: Projects involving a small number of participants can sustain engagement in ethical reflection among participants and participant-organisers. PLR that prioritises transparency, participant control of data and ongoing risk-to-benefit evaluation is compatible with the principles that underlie traditional ethical review of health research, while being appropriate for a context in which citizen scientists play the central role. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-04-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6500204/ /pubmed/30944134 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025633 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Ethics
Grant, Azure Dominique
Wolf, Gary Isaac
Nebeker, Camille
Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title_full Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title_fullStr Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title_full_unstemmed Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title_short Approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
title_sort approaches to governance of participant-led research: a qualitative case study
topic Ethics
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6500204/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30944134
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025633
work_keys_str_mv AT grantazuredominique approachestogovernanceofparticipantledresearchaqualitativecasestudy
AT wolfgaryisaac approachestogovernanceofparticipantledresearchaqualitativecasestudy
AT nebekercamille approachestogovernanceofparticipantledresearchaqualitativecasestudy