ArticleJournal of psychiatric research2014
Giving voice to study volunteers: comparing views of mentally ill, physically ill, and healthy protocol participants on ethical aspects of clinical research.
Article in Journal of psychiatric research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analyzing ethical dimensions of mental disorders: trends and key research areas through bibliometric methods.Journal of Yeungnam medical science · 2025Article
- Self-reported influences on willingness to receive COVID-19 vaccines among physically ill, mentally ill, and healthy individuals.Journal of psychiatric research · 2022Article
- Maternal Perceptions of Safeguards for Research Involving Children.Journal of child and family studies · 2022Article
- Influence of Dispositional Optimism on Ethically Salient Research Perspectives: A Pilot Study.Ethics & human research · 2022Article
- Factors Influencing Perceived Helpfulness and Participation in Innovative Research: A Pilot Study of Individuals with and without Mood Symptoms.Ethics & behavior · 2022Article
- Perceived protectiveness of research safeguards and influences on willingness to participate in research: A novel MTurk pilot study.Journal of psychiatric research · 2021Article
- Swedish large-scale schizophrenia study: Why do patients and healthy controls participate?Schizophrenia research · 2021Article
- Attitudes of Mothers Regarding Willingness to Enroll Their Children in Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2020Article
- Negative association of perceived risk and willingness to participate in innovative psychiatric research protocols.Journal of psychiatric research · 2020Article
- Research on the pathophysiology, treatment, and prevention of suicide: practical and ethical issues.BMC psychiatry · 2019Article
- Attitudes Regarding Enrollment in a Genetic Research Project: An Informed Consent Simulation Study Comparing Views of People With Depression, Diabetes, and Neither Condition.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2019Article
- Receptiveness to participation in genetic research: A pilot study comparing views of people with depression, diabetes, or no illness.Journal of psychiatric research · 2017Article
- The Ethics of Clinical Trials Research in Severe Mood Disorders.Bioethics · 2017Article
- Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2016Article
- Demonstrating Patterns in the Views Of Stakeholders Regarding Ethically-Salient Issues in Clinical Research: A Novel Use of Graphical Models in Empirical Ethics Inquiry.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationEthical controversy surrounds clinical research involving seriously ill participants. While many stakeholders have opinions, the extent to which protocol volunteers themselves see human research as ethically acceptable has not been documented. To address this gap of knowledge, authors sought to assess views of healthy and ill clinical research volunteers regarding the ethical acceptability of human studies involving individuals who are ill or are potentially vulnerable.
methodsSurveys and semi-structured interviews were used to query clinical research protocol participants and a comparison group of healthy individuals. A total of 179 respondents participated in this study: 150 in protocols (60 mentally ill, 43 physically ill, and 47 healthy clinical research protocol participants) and 29 healthy individuals not enrolled in protocols. Main outcome measures included responses regarding ethical acceptability of clinical research when it presents significant burdens and risks, involves people with serious mental and physical illness, or enrolls people with other potential vulnerabilities in the research situation.
resultsRespondents expressed decreasing levels of acceptance of participation in research that posed burdens of increasing severity. Participation in protocols with possibly life-threatening consequences was perceived as least acceptable (mean = 1.82, sd = 1.29). Research on serious illnesses, including HIV, cancer, schizophrenia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, was seen as ethically acceptable across respondent groups (range of means = [4.0, 4.7]). Mentally ill volunteers expressed levels of ethical acceptability for physical illness research and mental illness research as acceptable and similar, while physically ill volunteers expressed greater ethical acceptability for physical illness research than for mental illness research. Mentally ill, physically ill, and healthy participants expressed neutral to favorable perspectives regarding the ethical acceptability of clinical research participation by potentially vulnerable subpopulations (difference in acceptability perceived by mentally ill - healthy = -0.04, CI [-0.46, 0.39]; physically ill - healthy = -0.13, CI [-0.62, -.36]).
conclusionsClinical research volunteers and healthy clinical research-"naïve" individuals view studies involving ill people as ethically acceptable, and their responses reflect concern regarding research that poses considerable burdens and risks and research involving vulnerable subpopulations. Physically ill research volunteers may be more willing to see burdensome and risky research as acceptable. Mentally ill research volunteers and healthy individuals expressed similar perspectives in this study, helping to dispel a misconception that those with mental illness should be presumed to hold disparate views.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.