Current Psychiatry Reports

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 262–267 | Cite as

Ethics of research on survivors of trauma

  • Soraya Seedat
  • Willem P. Pienaar
  • David Williams
  • Daniel J. Stein
Article

Abstract

Essential elements of all research include balance of risks and benefits, unbiased selection of research samples, and assurance of the rights of individual participants. This paper highlights some key ethical issues and summarizes recent evidence relating to participation in, and conduct of, trauma-focused studies with special reference to vulnerable populations (eg, women and children, refugees, survivors of human rights violations, and survivors of trauma in the developing world). A concise ethical framework, rather than rigid guidelines (that may not be applicable to all trauma studies), may be a more useful point of reference for investigators and ethics committees or institutional review boards. Despite the increased empiric data available to inform ethical dilemmas regarding trauma research, more cost-burden analysis research in varying trauma populations and careful investigation of factors that contribute to risk and benefit is required.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS): International Guidelines for Ethical Review of Epidemiological Studies. Geneva: CIOMS; 1991.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beyrer C, Kass NE: Human rights, politics, and reviews of research ethics. Lancet 2002, 360:246–251. This is a comprehensive review of ethical issues inherent in survivors of human rights violations and provides guidelines for conducting research in difficult political contexts.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Medical Research Council of South Africa: Guidelines on Ethics for Medical Research: General Principles Including Research on Children, Vulnerable Groups, International Collaboration and Epidemiology. Cape Town, South Africa: Medical Research Council; 2003.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ellsberg M, Heise L: Bearing witness: ethics in domestic violence research. Lancet 2002, 359:1599–1604. This article discusses the challenges of applying ethical principles to research on domestic violence and provides guidance on how to minimize risks to participants.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Griffin MG, Resick PA, Waldrop AE, et al.: Participation in trauma research: is there evidence of harm? J Trauma Stress 2003, 16:221–227. This study provides very useful empirical data on participant reactions to different trauma assessment procedures in domestic violence (n=260), rape (n=108), and physical assault (n=62) samples. Results indicated that participation was very well tolerated by the vast majority of the trauma survivors.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Levy P: The Drowned and the Saved. New York: Vintage International; 1988.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Henderson AS, Jorm AF: Do mental health surveys disturb? Psychol Med 1990, 20:721–724.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jorm AF, Henderson AS, Scott R, et al.: Do mental health surveys disturb? Further evidence. Psychol Med 1994, 24:233–237.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Turnbull JE, McLeod JD, Callahan JM, et al.: Who should ask? Ethical interviewing in psychiatric epidemiology studies. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1988, 58:228–239.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newman E, Walker EA, Gefland A: Assessing the ethical costs and benefits of trauma-focused research. Ann Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1999, 21:187–196. This study provides a detailed assessment of participant reactions in women who completed a trauma-focused survey and provides insights on ethical issues surrounding participation in traumatic stress studies.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Willebrand M, Wikehult B, Ekselius L: Acceptance of a traumafocused survey: do personality and health matter? Ann Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2004, 26:70–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Shalev AY, Freedman S, Peri T, et al.: Prospective study of posttraumatic stress disorder and depression following trauma. Am J Psychiatry 1998, 155:630–637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruzek JI, Zatzick DF: Ethical considerations in research participation among acutely injured trauma survivors: an empirical investigation. Ann Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2000, 22:27–36. This is the first empiric investigation of responses to participation and ethical considerations in a sample of acutely traumatized adults.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa: Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa Report. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta & Co. Ltd.; 1998.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Zungu-Dirwayi N, Kaminer D, Mbanga I, et al.: The psychiatric sequelae of human rights violations: a challenge for primary care. J Nerv Ment Dis 2004, 192:255–259.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kaminer D, Stein DJ, Mbanga I, et al.: The Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa: relation to psychiatric status and forgiveness among survivors of human rights abuses. Br J Pychiatry 2001, 178:373–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stein DJ, Herman A, Kaminer D, et al.: Ethical aspects of research on psychological trauma. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience 2000, 2:31–36.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Leaning J: Ethics of research in refugee populations. Lancet 2001, 357:1432–1433.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Johnson LE, Benight CC: Effects of trauma-focused research on recent domestic violence survivors. J Trauma Stress 2003, 16:567–571.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    World Health Organization: Protocol for WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Geneva: WHO; 1997.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    World Health Organization: Putting Women’s Safety First: Ethical and Safety Recommendations for Research on Domestic Violence Against Women. Geneva: Global Programme on Evidence for Health Policy, WHO; 1999.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Reich W, Kaplan L: The effects of psychiatric and psychosocial interviews on children. Compr Psychiatry 1994, 35:50–53.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kassam-Adams N, Newman E: The reactions to research participation questionnaires for children and for parents (RRPQ-C and RRPQ-P). Ann Gen Hosp Psychiatry 2002, 24:336–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McQuaid D, Barton J, Campbell E: Researchers BEWARE! Attrition and nonparticpation at large. J Burn Care Rehabil 2003, 24:203–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vitiello B, Jensen PS, Hoagwood K: Integrating science and ethics in child and adolescent psychiatry research. Biol Psychiatry 1999, 46:1044–1049.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ondrusek N, Abramovitch R, Pencharz P, et al.: Empirical examination of the ability of children to consent to clinical research. J Med Ethics 1998, 24:158–165.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Paul M, Foreman DM, Kent L: Out-patient clinic attendance consent from children and young people-ethical aspects and practical considerations. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry 2000, 5:203–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dyregrov K, Dyregrov A, Raundalen M: Refugee families’ experience of research participation. J Trauma Stress 2000, 13:413–426.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Frank E, Novick DM, Kupfer DJ: Beyond the question of placebo controls: ethical issues in psychopharmacological drug studies. Psychopharmacology 2003, 171:19–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Calman K: Conducting research in developing countries. Drug Discov Today 2002, 7:1155–1159.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Spitzer R: Are Clinicians Still Necessary? Psychotherapy Research: Where Are We Going and Where Should We Go? New York: Guilford Press; 1984.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Anthony JC, Folstein M, Romanoski AJ, et al.: Comparison of the lay Diagnostic Interview Schedule and a standardized psychiatric diagnosis. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985, 42:667–675.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Helzer JE, Robins LN, McEvoy LT, et al.: A comparison of clinical and Diagnostic interview Schedule diagnoses: physicians reexamination of lay-interviewed cases in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1985, 42:657–666.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wing J, Henderson A, Winkel M: The rating of symptoms by a psychiatrist and a non-psychiatrist: A study of patients referred from general practice. Psychol Med 1977, 7:713–715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Dohrenwend B, Shrout P: Toward the development of a two stage procedure for case identification and classification in psychiatric epidemiology. In Research in Community and Mental Health, vol 2. Edited by Simmens R. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1981.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Soraya Seedat
    • 1
  • Willem P. Pienaar
  • David Williams
  • Daniel J. Stein
  1. 1.Medical Research Council Unit on Anxiety and Stress Disorders, Department of PsychiatryUniversity of StellenboschCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations