• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

心理健康研究中的脆弱性概念:基于研究人员视角的混合方法研究。

The Concept of Vulnerability in Mental Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study on Researcher Perspectives.

机构信息

Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal, Québec, Canada.

The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA.

出版信息

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Jul;15(3):128-142. doi: 10.1177/1556264620902657. Epub 2020 Feb 10.

DOI:10.1177/1556264620902657
PMID:32036715
Abstract

The concept of vulnerability plays a central role in research ethics in signaling that certain research participants warrant more careful consideration because their risk of harm is heightened due to their participation in research. Despite scholarly debates, the descriptive and normative meanings ascribed to the concept have remained disengaged from the perspective of users of the concept and those concerned by its use. In this study, we report a survey- and interview-based investigation of mental health researcher perspectives on vulnerability. We found that autonomy-based understandings of vulnerability were predominant but that other understandings coexisted, reflecting considerable pluralism. A wide range of challenges were associated with this concept, and further training was recommended by researchers.

摘要

易感性概念在研究伦理中起着核心作用,它表明某些研究参与者需要更仔细的考虑,因为他们参与研究的风险因之而升高。尽管有学术上的争论,但该概念的描述性和规范性含义一直与概念的使用者和关心其使用的人脱节。在这项研究中,我们报告了一项基于调查和访谈的心理健康研究人员对易感性观点的调查。我们发现,以自主性为基础的易感性理解占主导地位,但也存在其他理解,反映出相当大的多元化。这个概念与一系列广泛的挑战有关,研究人员建议进一步培训。

相似文献

1
The Concept of Vulnerability in Mental Health Research: A Mixed Methods Study on Researcher Perspectives.心理健康研究中的脆弱性概念:基于研究人员视角的混合方法研究。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Jul;15(3):128-142. doi: 10.1177/1556264620902657. Epub 2020 Feb 10.
2
Enriching our understanding of vulnerability through the experiences and perspectives of individuals living with mental illness.通过患有精神疾病的个体的经历和观点,丰富我们对脆弱性的理解。
Account Res. 2019 Oct;26(7):439-459. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1679121. Epub 2019 Oct 18.
3
Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account.丰富研究伦理中脆弱性概念:一种综合与功能的观点。
Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):19-34. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12471. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
4
Vulnerability in research ethics: a way forward.研究伦理中的漏洞:前进之路。
Bioethics. 2013 Jul;27(6):333-40. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12032. Epub 2013 May 30.
5
Very useful, but do carefully: Mental health researcher views on establishing a Mental Health Expert Consumer Researcher Group.非常有用,但要小心:心理健康研究人员对建立心理健康专家消费者研究小组的看法。
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Nov;26(9-10):358-367. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12547. Epub 2019 Aug 18.
6
Researcher-researched relationship in qualitative research: Shifts in positions and researcher vulnerability.定性研究中的研究者与被研究者关系:立场转变与研究者的易受伤害性
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2016 Jun 14;11:30996. doi: 10.3402/qhw.v11.30996. eCollection 2016.
7
Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the "What Ifs?".认识研究伦理中的风险与脆弱性:设想“如果……会怎样?”
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Apr;12(2):107-116. doi: 10.1177/1556264617696920. Epub 2017 Mar 14.
8
The perspectives of researchers on obtaining informed consent in developing countries.研究人员对在发展中国家获取知情同意书的看法。
Dev World Bioeth. 2007 Apr;7(1):19-24. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2006.00147.x.
9
Establishing an expert mental health consumer research group: Perspectives of nonconsumer researchers.建立一个心理健康消费者专家研究小组:非消费者研究人员的观点。
Perspect Psychiatr Care. 2021 Jan;57(1):33-42. doi: 10.1111/ppc.12520. Epub 2020 Apr 28.
10
How did I not see that? Perspectives of nonconsumer mental health researchers on the benefits of collaborative research with consumers.我怎么没看出来?非消费者心理健康研究人员对与消费者合作研究的好处的看法。
Int J Ment Health Nurs. 2018 Aug;27(4):1230-1239. doi: 10.1111/inm.12453. Epub 2018 Mar 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Association between the psychological frailty index and stroke: a cohort study from CHARLS.心理脆弱指数与中风之间的关联:来自中国健康与养老追踪调查(CHARLS)的队列研究
Sci Rep. 2025 Aug 13;15(1):29756. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-15270-8.
2
When a Negative Experience Sticks With You: Does the Revised Outcome Debriefing Counteract the Consequences of Experimental Ostracism in Psychological Research?当负面经历挥之不去时:修订后的结果汇报能否抵消心理研究中实验性排斥的后果?
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2024 Feb;19(1-2):16-27. doi: 10.1177/15562646241227065. Epub 2024 Jan 23.
3
Paradigms unfolded - developing, validating, and evaluating the Medical Education e-Professionalism framework from a philosophical perspective.
范式展开——从哲学角度构建、验证和评估医学教育电子职业精神框架。
Front Med (Lausanne). 2023 Oct 19;10:1230620. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2023.1230620. eCollection 2023.
4
'We're welcomed into people's homes every day' versus 'we're the people that come and arrest you': The relational production of masculinities and vulnerabilities among male first responders.“我们每天都被欢迎进入人们的家中”与“我们是来逮捕你的人”:男性一线急救人员的男子气概和脆弱性的关系性生产。
Sociol Health Illn. 2022 Jul;44(7):1094-1113. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.13481. Epub 2022 May 19.