Butler Ashleigh E, Hall Helen, Copnell Beverley
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Victoria, Australia.
Adult and Paediatric Intensive Care Unit, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia, PO Box 2742 Rowville, VIC, Australia, 3178.
Res Nurs Health. 2017 Aug;40(4):372-377. doi: 10.1002/nur.21800. Epub 2017 May 25.
Recruitment of participants into bereavement research may present many challenges for the research team. At present, there is little consensus for researchers and ethics committees on the most appropriate method of recruitment. There is some evidence that participants prefer to be contacted about research studies via letters. However, recruitment involving the use of a letter can occur in a number of ways, each with ethical and practical benefits and limitations. In a study of the experiences of bereaved parents, we used letters in three ways: direct mailing from the research team with an opt-out option; permission to mail letters obtained by social workers from a hospital-based follow-up program during routine contact; and letters mailed from the hospital's PICU research nurse at the hospital with instruction on how to opt in. In this paper, the practical and ethical realities of each method are highlighted, using examples from our own experiences. Nineteen parents also provided reflections in follow-up phone calls. While direct researcher contact is perhaps the most feasible for researchers, ethical concerns may render it unacceptable. While contact via a known member of a follow-up program is more ethically appropriate for participants, it also presents significant practical issues. We suggest that contact via a representative of the healthcare institution provides the best balance of ethical and practical acceptability for both participants and the research team, but responsiveness to the ethical and practical requirements of the study is crucial in ensuring it can be successfully undertaken. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
将参与者纳入丧亲之痛研究可能给研究团队带来诸多挑战。目前,对于研究人员和伦理委员会而言,在最合适的招募方法上几乎没有达成共识。有证据表明,参与者更倾向于通过信件收到关于研究的联系。然而,涉及使用信件的招募可以有多种方式,每种方式都有伦理和实际方面的益处及局限性。在一项关于丧亲父母经历的研究中,我们以三种方式使用信件:研究团队直接邮寄并提供退出选项;社会工作者在常规联系期间从医院的随访项目获得邮寄信件的许可;以及医院的儿科重症监护病房(PICU)研究护士在医院邮寄信件并说明如何选择加入。在本文中,我们通过自身经历的例子突出了每种方法在实际和伦理方面的现实情况。19位家长也在后续电话中提供了反馈。虽然研究人员直接联系可能对研究人员来说最可行,但伦理问题可能使其不可接受。虽然通过随访项目的已知成员进行联系对参与者来说在伦理上更合适,但它也存在重大的实际问题。我们建议通过医疗机构的代表进行联系能为参与者和研究团队在伦理和实际可接受性之间提供最佳平衡,但对研究的伦理和实际要求做出回应对于确保研究能够成功开展至关重要。© 2017威利期刊公司