Returning research results to individuals who are incarcerated in the USA

Author:

Raghunathan SahanaORCID

Abstract

The return of research results to populations and individuals is increasingly recognised as both important but ethically complicated. In the USA, there are few studies or detailed evidence-based practices on the return of research results to individuals who are incarcerated. In general, return of research results is not required with some exceptions; however, there are reasons to believe that in many cases returning results is most consistent with the ethical conduct of research. With individuals who are incarcerated, specific considerations for this historically disadvantaged population should be addressed. These are privacy, therapeutic misconception, paternalism, actionability and communication. If research results are returned, the initial consent process should consider thoroughness regarding privacy rights, the researchers’ role, clarity around next steps and communication methods. Prison leadership should be key stakeholders in the process to streamline communication. Returning research results can be a method to counter historical and current paternalism in the carceral setting, while shifting the culture on how research is understood and conducted in carceral settings. The decision to return results should balance benefits, risks and research ethics. Further research is needed to identify and implement optimal approaches for returning results in this population.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

Health Policy,Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous),Issues, ethics and legal aspects,Health (social science)

Reference13 articles.

1. The Belmont report. ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research;J Am Coll Dent,2014

2. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on the Return of Individual-Specific Research Results Generated in Research Laboratories . Returning individual research results to participants: guidance for a new research paradigm. Downey AS, Busta ER, Mancher M, Botkin JR, editors. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US), 2018.

3. Prisoner research Faqs [HHS.gov]. Available: https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/faq/prisoner-research/index.html [Accessed 15 Jun 2023].

4. WMA Declaration of Helsinki . Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects – WMA – the world medical association. Available: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ [Accessed 06 Sep 2023].

5. Sharing research results with participants: an ethical discussion | Center for global development | Ideas to action. Available: https://www.cgdev.org/blog/sharing-research-results-participants-ethical-discussion [Accessed 02 Jun 2023].

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3