Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37415145›Full record

ArticleHarm reduction journal2023

Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET): developing accessible and relevant research ethics training for community-based participatory research with people with lived and living experience using illicit drugs and harm reduction workers.

Jeffrey Morgan, Scott D Neufeld, Heather Holroyd, Jean Ruiz, Tara Taylor, Seonaid Nolan, Stephanie Glegg

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Harm reduction journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Jeffrey MorganSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada. jeffrey.morgan@bccsu.ubc.ca.
Scott D NeufeldDepartment of Psychology, Brock University, 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way, St. Catharines, ON, L2S 3A1, Canada.
Heather HolroydBC Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe St., Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Jean RuizUniversity of British Columbia, Office of Research Ethics, 6190 Agronomy Rd., Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada.
Tara TaylorOverdose Prevention Society, 390 Columbia St., Vancouver, BC, V6A 4J1, Canada.
Seonaid NolanBC Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe St., Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
Stephanie GleggBC Centre on Substance Use, 400-1045 Howe St., Vancouver, BC, V6Z 2A9, Canada.
University of British Columbia · CABritish Columbia Centre on Substance Use · CABrock University · CAPositive Living Society of British Columbia · CAUniversity of British Columbia Hospital · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity-based participatory research (CBPR) can directly involve non-academic community members in the research process. Existing resources for research ethics training can be inaccessible to team members without an academic background and do not attend to the full spectrum of ethical issues that arise through community-engaged research practices. We detail an approach to capacity building and training in research ethics in the context of CBPR with people who use(d) illicit drugs and harm reduction workers in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside neighborhood.

methodsA project team comprised of academic and community experts in CBPR, research ethics, and harm reduction met over five months to develop the Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET). The group distilled key principles and content from federal research ethics guidelines in Canada, and developed case examples to situate the principles in the context of research with people who use(d) illicit drugs and harm reduction workers. In addition to content related to federal ethics guidelines, the study team integrated additional content related to ethical issues that arise through community-based research, and ethical principles for research in the Downtown Eastside. Workshops were evaluated using a pre-post questionnaire with attendees.

resultsOver the course of six weeks in January-February 2020, we delivered three in-person workshops for twelve attendees, most of whom were onboarding as peer research assistants with a community-based research project. Workshops were structured around key principles of research ethics: respect for persons, concern for welfare, and justice. The discussion-based format we deployed allowed for the bi-directional exchange of information between facilitators and attendees. Evaluation results suggest the CERET approach was effective, and attendees gained confidence and familiarity with workshop content across learning objectives.

conclusionsThe CERET initiative offers an accessible approach to fulfill institutional requirements while building capacity in research ethics for people who use(d) drugs and harm reduction workers. This approach recognizes community members as partners in ethical decision making throughout the research process and is aligned with values of CBPR. Building capacity around intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of research ethics can prepare all study team members to attend to ethical issues that arise from CBPR.

Indexed as

Illicit DrugsCanadaCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchEthics, ResearchHarm ReductionHumansIllicit DrugsCommunity-based participatory researchHarm reductionPeople who use drugsResearch ethicsRresearch ethics pedagogy

Identifiers

PMID37415145
PMCPMC10324203
OpenAlexW4383343824

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.