ArticleAJOB empirical bioethics
Knowledge of Federal Regulations for Mental Health Research Involving Prisoners.
Article in AJOB empirical bioethics. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review of Empirical Research on Research Ethics Board Membership and Expertise.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Looking Beyond the IRB.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2025Article
- Misconceptions About Working in Correctional Psychiatry.The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGiven their vulnerability to coercion and exploitation, prisoners who participate in research are protected by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulations designed to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Knowledge of these regulations is essential for researchers who conduct and institutional review boards (IRBs) that oversee mental health research in correctional settings.
methodsWe explored depth of knowledge of OHRP regulations by surveying a nationwide sample of: (1) mental health researchers who have conducted research in correctional settings; (2) mental health researchers who have conducted research in non-correctional settings; (3) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in correctional settings; (4) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in in non-correctional settings; and (5) IRB prisoner representatives. Participants responded to a 10-item knowledge questionnaire based on OHRP regulations.
results1,256 participants provided usable data (44.9% response rate). Results revealed limited knowledge of OHRP regulations, with a mean across groups of 44.1% correct answers. IRB Prisoner representatives, IRB members, and researchers with correctional experience demonstrated the highest levels of knowledge; however, even these participants were able to correctly answer only approximately 50% of the items.
conclusionsAlthough awareness that prisoners are a protected population and that different regulatory procedures apply to research with them is likely to be universal among researchers and IRB members, our findings reveal limited mastery of the specific OHRP regulations that are essential knowledge for researchers who conduct and IRB members who oversee mental health research in correctional settings. Given well-documented health and healthcare disparities, prisoners could potentially benefit greatly from mental health research; increasing knowledge of the OHRP regulations among researchers and IRB members is a crucial step toward meeting this important public health goal.
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.