Advertisement

Including Vulnerable Groups in Health Research

  • Nikki Kiyimba
  • Jessica Nina Lester
  • Michelle O’Reilly
Chapter

Abstract

Commonly, health research involves participants who may be considered vulnerable in some way, by virtue of their illness or health status, their age, or some other factor. Recruiting participants who are considered vulnerable has been the subject of much critical discussion, in terms of ensuring those voices are not excluded, but also in terms of ethics and protection. However, the notion of ‘vulnerability’ is contentious, and there has been some debate regarding which populations ought to be classified in this way. When including these groups in naturally occurring data collection, these issues are also relevant and important. Thus, the focus for the chapter is on this concept of vulnerability in qualitative health research, and the role that gatekeepers play in protecting them.

Keywords

Vulnerability Sensitive Qualitative Gatekeepers Protection 

References

  1. Alderson, P. (2004). Ethics. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 97–112). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Appleton, J. (1994). The concept of vulnerability in relation to Child Protection: Health visitors’ perceptions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 1132–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bielby, P. (2008). Competence and vulnerability in biomedical research. New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bo Paludan, M., & Popplewell, R. (2013). Praxis Note 65: Turning voice into action. A discussion of three action research studies conducted by the Danish Children and Youth Network and their learning outcomes. Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC).Google Scholar
  5. Castro-Gilliard, A. (2017). Pregnant women as “vulnerable populations”: The cost and a possible solution. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://www.vabioethics.com/content/2017/10/2/pregnant-women-as-vulnerable-populations-the-cost-and-a-possible-solution
  6. Cemlyn, S. (2000). From neglect to partnership? Challenges for social services in promoting the welfare of traveller children. Child Abuse Review, 9, 349–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Coyne, I. (2010). Accessing children as research participants: examining the role of gatekeepers. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(4), 452–454.Google Scholar
  8. Dervin, F. (2016). Discourses of othering. In J. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of social interaction (pp. 43–55). London: Palgrave Pivot.Google Scholar
  9. Emmel, N., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J., & Sales, A. (2007). Accessing socially excluded people—Trust and the gatekeeper in the researcher-participant relationship. Sociological Research Online, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/emmel.html  https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fazel, S., Hayes, A., Bartellas, K., Clerici, M., & Trestman, R. (2016). The mental health of prisoners: A review of prevalence, adverse outcomes and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry, 3(9), 871–881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Freeman, M., & Mathison, S. (2009). Researching children’s experiences. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.Google Scholar
  12. Goward, P., Repper, J., Appleton, L., & Hagan, T. (2006). Crossing boundaries. Identifying and meeting the mental health needs of gypsies and travellers. Journal of Mental Health, 15(3), 315–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Wiles, R. (2004). Informed consent, gatekeepers & go-betweens. Paper presented at ‘The Ethics & Social Relations of Research’ conference (Sixth international conference on social science methodology). Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  14. Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Wiles, R. (2007). Informed consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens: Negotiating consent in child and youth-oriented institutions. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 403–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jansson, D. (2005). Race, power, and internal orientalism in the US: Reflections on Edward Said and the responsibilities of intellectuals. The Arab World Geographer, 8(1–2), 32–45.Google Scholar
  16. Krugman, S., & Shapiro, S. (1971). Experiments at the Willowbrook State School. The Lancet, 297(7706), 966–967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawrie, B. (1983). Travelling families in East London—Adapting health visiting methods to a minority group. Health Visitor, 56, 26–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Levine, C., Fadden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L., Sugarman, J., & Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. (2004). The limitations of ‘vulnerability’ as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics, 4, 44–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lund, A., & Engelsrud, G. (2008). “I am not that old”: Inter-personal experiences of thriving and threats at a senior centre. Ageing and Society, 28(5), 675–692.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mander, R. (1992). Seeking approval for research access: The gatekeeper’s role in facilitating a study of the care of the relinquishing mother. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1460–1464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McCaffery, J. (2009). Gypsies and Travellers: Literacy, discourse and communicative practices. Compare, 39(5), 643–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nickel, P. (2006). Vulnerable populations in research: The case of the seriously ill. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(3), 245–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nordentoft, H., & Kappel, N. (2011). Vulnerable participants in health research: Methodological and ethical challenges. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25(3), 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Reilly, M., Ronzoni, P., & Dogra, N. (2013). Research with children: Theory and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal Constitutional Law, 11(4), 1056–1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Piercy, H., & Hargate, M. (2004). Social research on the under-16s: A consideration of the issues from a UK perspective. Journal of Child Health Care, 8(4), 253–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Reel, K. (2011). Clinical considerations for allied professionals on research ethics—Vulnerable research participant populations: Ensuring ethical recruitment and enrolment. Heart Rhythm, 8(6), 947–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rogers, W., & Lange, M. (2013). Rethinking the vulnerability of minority populations in research. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2141–2146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C., & Dodds, S. (2012). Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Fem Approaches Bioethics, 5(2), 11–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ruof, M. (2004). Vulnerability, vulnerable populations, and policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(4), 411–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shepard, M., & Mahon, M. (2002). Vulnerable families: Research findings and methodological challenges. Journal of Family Nursing, 8(4), 309–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shivayogi, P. (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspectives Clinical Research, 4(1), 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Smith, D., & Ruston, A. (2013). ‘If you feel that nobody wants you you’ll withdraw into your own’: Gypsies/Travellers, networks and healthcare utilisation. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(8), 1196–1210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Spiers, J. (2000). New perspectives on vulnerability using emic and etic approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(3), 715–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Strong, T., & Zeman, D. (2005). Othering’ and ‘selving’ in therapeutic dialogue. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 7(4), 245–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tisdall, E., & Davis, J. (2004). Making a difference? Bringing children’s and young people’s views into policy-making. Children and Society, 18, 131–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van der Zande, I., van der Graaf, R., Oudijk, M., & van Delden, J. (2017). Vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(10), 657–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. World Medical Association. (2008, October). WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects—59th WMA General Assembly. Seoul, Korea.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nikki Kiyimba
    • 1
  • Jessica Nina Lester
    • 2
  • Michelle O’Reilly
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Social and Political ScienceUniversity of ChesterChesterUK
  2. 2.School of EducationIndiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  3. 3.The Greenwood Institute of Child HealthUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK

Personalised recommendations