Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30261041›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Ethical issues in using the internet to engage participants in family and child research: A scoping review.

Stacey Hokke, Naomi J Hackworth, Nina Quin, Shannon K Bennetts, Hnin Yee Win, Jan M Nicholson, Lawrie Zion, Jayne Lucke, Patrick Keyzer, Sharinne B Crawford

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Are Confident Parents Really Aware of Children's Online Risks? A Conceptual Model and Validation of Parental Self-Efficacy, Mediation, and Awareness Scales.International journal of bullying prevention : an official publication of the International Bullying Prevention Association · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Ethical issues in participatory arts methods for young people with adverse childhood experiences.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Stacey HokkeJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1338-0156
Naomi J HackworthJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Nina QuinJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Shannon K BennettsJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Hnin Yee WinJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jan M NicholsonJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Lawrie ZionDepartment of Communications and Media, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jayne LuckeAustralian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Patrick KeyzerLa Trobe Law School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Sharinne B CrawfordJudith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe internet is an increasingly popular tool in family and child research that is argued to pose new ethical challenges, yet few studies have systematically assessed the ethical issues of engaging parents and children in research online. This scoping review aims to identify and integrate evidence on the ethical issues reported when recruiting, retaining and tracing families and children in research online, and to identify ethical guidelines for internet research.

methodsAcademic literature was searched using electronic academic databases (Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL and Informit) and handsearching reference lists for articles published in English between January 2006 and February 2016. Grey literature was searched using Google to identify relevant ethical guidelines.

resultsSixty-five academic articles were included after screening 3,537 titles and abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Most articles reported using the internet to recruit participants (88%) with few reporting online retention (12%) or tracing (10%). Forty percent commented on ethical issues; the majority did not discuss ethics beyond general consent or approval procedures. Some ethical concerns were specific to engaging minors online, including parental consent, age verification and children's vulnerability. Other concerns applied when engaging any research participant online, including privacy and confidentiality, informed consent and disparities in internet access. Five professional guidelines and 10 university guidelines on internet research ethics were identified. Few academic articles (5%) reported using these guidelines.

conclusionsEngaging families and children in research online introduces unique challenges requiring careful consideration. While researchers regarded themselves as responsible for ensuring research is conducted ethically, lack of use of available guidelines and limited academic literature suggests internet research is occurring without suitable guidance. We recommend broad dissemination of ethical guidelines and encourage researchers to report the methodological and ethical issues of using the internet to engage families and children in research.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchFamilyParent-Child RelationsAdultChildConfidentialityFemaleGuidelines as TopicHumansInformed ConsentInternetMalePatient SelectionResearch DesignResearch Subjects

Identifiers

PMID30261041
PMCPMC6160098

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.