Affiliation:
1. University of Oulu, Finland
Abstract
Research participants are vital for the success of a birth cohort study. Despite their scientific importance and large participant numbers, research on participant experience in birth cohort studies is scarce. This study explores participant experience, its different dimensions and meaning of the experience for the participants’ lives. The data comes from the Northern Finland Birth Cohort 1966. In total, 49 semi-structured interviews were conducted with participants having full participation records and then subjected to qualitative content and thematic analysis. According to the findings, the participant experience is multidimensional, consisting of four dimensions; personal, relational, societal, and scientific. The experience evoked both positive and negative feelings and a sense of belongingness. Motivations to continue, perceived benefits of the study, consequences of participation, and the theme of trust were grouped under the four dimensions. The meaning of the study participation, and the level of personal investment and involvement in the study varied a lot among active study participants, forming a continuum from a very strong to a weak. The findings of this study contribute to the theoretical conceptualization of the participant experience. They help to better understand the participant’s perspective, and the different aspects that participating in a longitudinal research project may entail as a subjective and a relational experience. The results may contribute to research design and aid in enhancing participant satisfaction. That is important, as conducting high-quality research depends on motivated and committed research participants.
Subject
General Social Sciences,General Arts and Humanities
Reference63 articles.
1. Affleck P. (2009). Is it ethical to deny genetic research participants individualised results? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(4), 209–213. https://doi.org/doi:10.1136/jme.2007.024034.
2. Almeida L., Azevedo B., Nunes T., Vaz-Da-Silva M., Soares-Da-Silva P. (2007). Why healthy subjects volunteer for phase I studies and how they perceive their participation? European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 63(11), 1085–1094. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-007-0368-3
3. Barnett W., Brittain K., Sorsdahl K., Zar H. J., Stein D. J. (2016). Maternal participant experience in a South African birth cohort study enrolling healthy pregnant women and their infants. Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, 11(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13010-016-0036-2
4. Bjerregaard P., Ledgaard Holm A., Olesen I., Schnor O., Niclasen B. (2007). Ivaaq—the Greenland Inuit child cohort, a preliminary report. https://sdunet.dk/-/media/images/sif/udgivelser/2005/groenland/ivaag_-_the_greenland_inuit_chaild_cohort_-_a_preliminary_report.pdf
5. Booker C. L., Harding S., Benzeval M. (2011). A systematic review of the effect of retention methods in population-based cohort studies. BMC Public Health, 11, 249. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-11-249
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献