ArticlePloS one2018
Ethical issues in using the internet to engage participants in family and child research: A scoping review.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Ethical Implications of Using Social Media to Engage and Retain Justice-Involved Youth in Behavioral Health Research.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Trial
- Exploring green purchasing intentions and behaviours among Vietnamese Generation Z: A perspective from the theory of planned behaviour.PloS one · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Bringing rigor in contextual objectivity: lessons from applying feminist lens in scoping the evidence on girlhood studies in Indonesia.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
- Can everyone hear me? Reflections on the use of global online workshops for promoting inclusive knowledge generation.Qualitative research : QR · 2023Article
- Participant Recruitment Issues in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Clinical Trials with a Focus on Prevention Programs: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Literature.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Safety and Ethical Concerns Associated with Conducting Online Survey Studies among Children and Adolescents.Indian journal of psychological medicine · 2022Article
- 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 · 2021Review
- Collecting Social Media Information in a Substance Use Intervention Trial With Adolescent Girls With Lifetime Substance Use History: Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2021Article
- Social Media and Clinical Trials in Pediatric Disease: Musings From the Bench.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Review
- Leveraging Interdisciplinary Teams to Develop and Implement Secure Websites for Behavioral Research: Applied Tutorial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Exploring the ethical issues in research using digital data collection strategies with minors: A scoping review.PloS one · 2020Article
- Attitudes and Knowledge of Adolescents in Jordan Regarding the Ethics of Social Media Data Use for Research Purposes.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHREArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.