nach oben

Prevention Science

Erschienen in:

01.12.2009

The Attitudes of Females in Drug Court Toward Additional Safeguards in HIV Prevention Research

verfasst von: James M. DuBois, Catina Callahan O’Leary, Linda B. Cottler

Erschienen in: Prevention Science | Ausgabe 4/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

This article examines the attitudes of 97 women from the St. Louis City Drug Court who previously participated in an HIV prevention study. Data from the previous study indicated that the women met multiple criteria for vulnerability in research. Federal regulations require that such participants be provided with “additional safeguards.” The survey explored the following questions: (1) What are participants’ attitudes toward commonly proposed additional safeguards for vulnerable participants in research, and (2) Are attitudes toward safeguards related to participants’ previous compliance with an HIV prevention protocol? Preferences regarding safeguards in research were not significantly related to participants’ compliance in the previous study. Most participants wanted researchers to take extra measures not only to provide consent information, but to ensure that they are not high on drugs, that they understand relevant information, and that they retain consent information at each visit. Most participants wanted researchers themselves, and not a third party, to assume this responsibility.

Anderson, E.E., & DuBois, J.M. (2007). The need for evidence-based research ethics: A review of the substance abuse literature. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86, 95–105. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.06.011.CrossRefPubMed

Appelbaum, P. (1995). Consent and coercion: Research with involuntarily treated persons with mental illness or substance abuse. Accountability in Research, 4, 69–79. doi:10.1080/08989629508573868.CrossRefPubMed

Appelbaum, P.S. (2001). Competence to consent to research: A critique of the recommendations of the National Bioethics Advisory Committee. Accountability in Research, 7, 265–276. doi:10.1080/08989629908573957.CrossRef

Appelbaum, P.S., Lidz, C.W., & Meisel, A. (1987). Informed consent: Legal theory and clinical practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Berg, J.W., & Appelbaum, P.S. (1999). Subjects’ capacity to consent to neurobiological research. In H. A. Pincus, J. A. Lieberman, & S. Ferris (Eds.), Ethics in psychiatric research: A resource manual for human subjects protection (pp. 81–106). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

Brod, M.S., & Feinbloom, R.I. (1990). Feasibility and efficacy of verbal consents. Research on Aging, 12, 364–372. doi:10.1177/0164027590123005.CrossRefPubMed

Buchanan, D., Khoshnood, K., Stopka, T., Shaw, S., Santelices, C., & Singer, M. (2002). Ethical dilemmas created by the criminalization of status behaviors: Case examples from ethnographic field research with injection drug users. Health Education & Behavior, 29, 30–42. doi:10.1177/109019810202900105.CrossRef

Charland, L.C. (2002). Cynthia’s dilemma: Consenting to heroin prescription. The American Journal of Bioethics, 2, 37–47. doi:10.1162/152651602317533686.CrossRefPubMed

Corbie-Smith, G., Miller, W.C., & Ransohoff, D.F. (2004). Interpretations of ‘appropriate’ minority inclusion in clinical research. The American Journal of Medicine, 116, 249–252. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2003.09.032.CrossRefPubMed

Corbie-Smith, G., Thomas, S.B., Williams, M.V., & Moody-Ayers, S. (1999). Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans towards participation in medical research. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 14, 537–546.CrossRefPubMed

Cottler, L.B., Compton, W., & Keating, S. (1995). What incentives are effective rewards for “hidden populations” interviewed as a part of research projects? Public Health Reports, 110, 178.PubMed

Cottler, L.B., Compton, W.M., Ben-Abdallah, A., Horne, M., & Claverie, D. (1996). Achieving a 96.6 percent follow-up rate in a longitudinal study of drug abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 41, 209–217. doi:10.1016/0376-8716(96)01254-9.CrossRefPubMed

Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Code of federal regulations. Protection of human subjects. Title 45 public welfare, part 46. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

DuBois, J.M. (2005). Vulnerability in research. In E. A. Bankert & R. J. Amdur (Eds.), Institutional review boards: Management and function (2nd ed., pp. 337–340). Boston: Jones & Bartlett.

DuBois, J.M. (2008). Ethics in mental health research: Principles, guidance, and cases. New York: Oxford University Press.

Duval, G., & Salmon, C. (2004). Research note: Ethics of drug treatment research with court-supervised subjects. Journal of Drug Issues, 34, 991–1005.PubMed

Festinger, D.S., Marlowe, D.B., Croft, J.R., Dugosh, K.L., Mastro, N.K., Lee, P.A., et al. (2005). Do research payments precipitate drug use or coerce participation? Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 78, 275–281. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2004.11.011.CrossRefPubMed

Festinger, D.S., Marlowe, D.B., Dugosh, K.L., Croft, J.R., & Arabia, P.L. (2008). Higher magnitude cash payments improve research follow-up rates without increasing drug use or perceived coercion. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 96, 128–135. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2008.02.007.CrossRefPubMed

Fitzgerald, J.L., & Hamilton, M. (1997). Confidentiality, disseminated regulation and ethico-legal liabilities in research with hidden populations of illicit drug users. Addiction (Abingdon, England), 92, 1099–1107. doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.1997.tb03667.x.

Fouad, M., Partridge, E., Green, B., Kohler, C., Wynn, T., Nagy, S., et al. (2000). Minority recruitment in clinical trials: A conference at Tuskegee, researchers and the community. Annals of Epidemiology, 10, S35–S40.CrossRefPubMed

Giuliano, A., Mokuau, N., Hughes, C., Tortolero-Luna, G., Risendal, B., Ho, R., et al. (2000). Participation of minorities in cancer research: The influence of structural, cultural, and linguistic factors. Annals of Epidemiology, 10, S22–S34.CrossRef

Gordon, B.G., Brown, J., Kratochvil, C., & Prentice, E.D. (2002). Paying research subjects. In R. J. Amdur & E. A. Bankert (Eds.), Institutional review board management and function (pp. 186–190). Boston, MA: Jones & Bartlett.

Gorelick, D., Pickens, R., & Bonkovsky, F. (1999). Clinical research in substance abuse: Human subject issues. In H. Pincus, J. Lieberman, & S. Ferris (Eds.), Ethics in psychiatric research: A resource manual for human subjects protection (pp. 177–194). Washington: American Psychiatric Association.

Grady, C. (2001). Money for research participation? Does it jeopardize informed consent? The American Journal of Bioethics, 1, 40–44. doi:10.1162/152651601300169031.CrossRefPubMed

Israel, B.A., Schulz, A.J., Parker, E.A., & Becker, A.B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173–202. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173.CrossRefPubMed

King, P.A. (2005). Justice beyond Belmont. In J. F. Childress, E. M. Meslin, & H. T. Shapiro (Eds.), Belmont revisited: Ethical principles for research with human subjects (pp. 136–147). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Koocher, G. (1991). Questionable methods in alcohol research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 59, 246–248. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.59.2.246.CrossRefPubMed

Lemmons, T., & Elliot, C. (1999). Guinea pigs on the payroll: The ethics of paying research subjects. Accountability in Research, 7, 3–20. doi:10.1080/08989629908573939.CrossRef

Levine, R.J. (1988). Ethics and regulation of clinical research (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

McCarthy, C.R. (1998). The evolving story of justice in federal research policy. In J. P. Kahn, A. C. Mastroianni, & J. Sugarman (Eds.), Beyond consent: Seeking justice in research (pp. 11–31). New York: Oxford University Press.

Murphy, S.A., Lynch, K.G., Oslin, D., McKay, J.R., & TenHave, T. (2007). Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 88, S24–S30. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.09.008.CrossRefPubMed

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (1998). Research involving persons with mental disorders that may affect decisionmaking capacity: Report and recommendations. Rockville, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

National Bioethics Advisory Commission. (2001). Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.

National Commission. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1978). Research involving those institutionalized as mentally infirm: Report and recommendations. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Ritter, A., Fry, C., & Swan, A. (2003). The ethics of reimbursing injection drug users for public health research interviews: What price are we prepared to pay? The International Journal on Drug Policy, 14, 1–3. doi:10.1016/S0955-3959(02)00094-4.CrossRef

Sieber, J. E. (2001). Privacy and confidentiality as related to human research in social and behavioral science. In Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants: Commissioned papers and staff analysis (pp. N1–N50). Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Committee. Electronic copy available at: http://www.georgetown.edu/research/nrcbl/nbac/human/overvol2.pdf.

Wendler, D., & Rackoff, J. (2001). Informed consent and respecting autonomy: What’s a signature got to do with it? IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 23, 1–4. doi:10.2307/3564508.CrossRef

Willis, G. (2005). Cognitive interviewing: A tool for improving questionnaire design. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Titel: The Attitudes of Females in Drug Court Toward Additional Safeguards in HIV Prevention Research
verfasst von: James M. DuBois
Catina Callahan O’Leary
Linda B. Cottler
Publikationsdatum: 01.12.2009
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Prevention Science / Ausgabe 4/2009
Print ISSN: 1389-4986
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-6695
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-009-0136-y

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 4/2009

Relationship Between Neighborhood Context, Family Management Practices and Alcohol Use Among Urban, Multi-ethnic, Young Adolescents

The Benefits of Booster Interventions: Evidence from a Family-Focused Prevention Program

Regression Mixture Models of Alcohol Use and Risky Sexual Behavior Among Criminally-Involved Adolescents

Socio-Demographic Variability in Adolescent Substance Use: Mediation by Parents and Peers

Confirmed Recall and Perceived Effectiveness of Tobacco Countermarketing Media in Rural Youth

Analysis and Influence of Demographic and Risk Factors on Difficult Child Behaviors