Hellmuth Julianne C, Leonard Kenneth E
Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
Research Institute on Addictions, Buffalo, New York, USA.
Partner Abuse. 2013 Oct 1;4(4):482-493. doi: 10.1891/1946-6560.4.4.482.
Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly sensitive and may put some participants at increased psychological, emotional, and physical risk. Still, we know little about the risks posed by most social science methods and have minimal guidance regarding appropriate practices for carrying out various forms of research. This study collected data from 59 IPV researchers regarding the most commonly used participant protection methods, the efficacy of those methods, number and nature of adverse events (AE) experienced, and experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs). Participants were invited via e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey. Findings indicate an overall low incidence of AEs as well as a minimal relationship between AEs and IPV inquiry. These findings may provide researchers with preliminary data on the effectiveness of various participant protection methods. Results may also facilitate more innovative and effective participant protections measures, help researchers prevent and cope with AE, and create more mutually beneficial relationships with IRBs.
对亲密伴侣暴力(IPV)的研究高度敏感,可能会使一些参与者面临更高的心理、情感和身体风险。尽管如此,我们对大多数社会科学方法所带来的风险知之甚少,对于开展各种形式研究的适当做法也几乎没有指导。本研究收集了59名IPV研究人员的数据,内容涉及最常用的参与者保护方法、这些方法的有效性、经历的不良事件(AE)的数量和性质,以及与机构审查委员会(IRB)的经历。通过电子邮件邀请参与者完成一项匿名在线调查。研究结果表明AE的总体发生率较低,且AE与IPV调查之间的关系微乎其微。这些发现可能为研究人员提供有关各种参与者保护方法有效性的初步数据。研究结果还可能促进更具创新性和有效性的参与者保护措施,帮助研究人员预防和应对AE,并与IRB建立更互利的关系。