We are upgrading the repository! A content freeze is in effect until December 6, 2024. New submissions or changes to existing items will not be allowed during this period. All content already published will remain publicly available for searching and downloading. Updates will be posted in the Website Upgrade 2024 FAQ in the sidebar Help menu. Reach out to escholarship@umassmed.edu with any questions.
Competing commitments in psychiatric research: an examination of psychiatric researchers' perspectives
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
UMass Chan Affiliations
Department of Psychiatry, Center for Mental Health Services ResearchDocument Type
Journal ArticlePublication Date
2012-09-27Keywords
PsychiatryResearch
Biomedical Research
Ethics, Research
Bioethics and Medical Ethics
Health Services Research
Mental and Social Health
Psychiatry
Psychiatry and Psychology
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Clinician-researchers have responsibilities both to seek the best interests of the people they treat and to advance scientific knowledge. The purpose of this study was to examine researchers' beliefs and behaviors regarding areas of tension between their clinical and scientific roles. We conducted and analyzed 19 in-depth interviews with psychiatric clinical researchers to explore these issues. Responses usually indicated that researchers recognize limits on their abilities to be helpful to patients, since they cannot know in advance whether a specific research intervention will help and whether participation is in the patient's best interest. Hence, most researchers did not make special efforts to recruit patients doing poorly in standard care, although they occasionally tolerated minor deviations from recruitment and treatment protocols when they might be in participants' interests. Often respondents asked the IRB to approve these deviations or change the protocol for all subjects, though it was unclear how often they may have acted without this approval. Despite researchers' high regard for following the research protocol, clinical judgment remained the ultimate guide if patients were not doing well and needed alternative care. Hence, respondents expressed a strong commitment both to protecting patients' interests and to advancing science. In cases of direct conflict between the two, many of the researchers tended to promote patients' best interests even at some cost to scientific research.Source
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2012 Sep-Dec;35(5-6):380-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.09.003. Link to article on publisher's siteDOI
10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.09.003Permanent Link to this Item
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/46085PubMed ID
23021197Related Resources
Link to Article in PubMedae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.ijlp.2012.09.003
Scopus Count
Collections
Related items
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
-
"Our lab is the community": Defining essential supporting infrastructure in engagement researchNease, Donald E. Jr.; Burton, Dee; Cutrona, Sarah L; Edmundson, Lauren; Krist, Alex H.; Laws, Michael Barton; Tamez, Montelle (2018-08-01)Introduction: Effective patient engagement is central to patient-centered outcomes research. A well-designed infrastructure supports and facilitates patient engagement, enabling study development and implementation. We sought to understand infrastructure needs from recipients of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) pilot grant awards. Methods: We surveyed recipients of PCORI pilot project awards on self-perceived strengths in engagement infrastructure through PCORI's Ways of Engaging-Engagement Activity Tool survey, and interviewed leaders of 8 projects who volunteered as exemplars. Descriptive statistics summarized the survey findings. We conducted a thematic analysis of the interview transcripts. Results: Of the 50 surveyed pilots, 22 answered the engagement infrastructure questions (44% response rate). Survey and interview findings emphasized the importance of committed institutional leadership, ongoing relationships with stakeholder organizations, and infrastructure funding through Clinical and Translational Science Awards, PCORI, and institutional discretionary funds. Conclusions: These findings highlight the importance of and how to improve upon existing institutional infrastructure.
-
Training in the Conduct of Population-Based Multi-Site and Multi-Disciplinary Studies: the Cancer Research Network's Scholars ProgramBuist, Diana S. M.; Field, Terry S.; Banegas, Matthew P.; Clancy, Heather A.; Doria-Rose, V. Paul; Epstein, Mara M; Greenlee, Robert T.; McDonald, Sarah; Nichols, Hazel B.; Pawloski, Pamala A.; et al. (2015-10-22)Expanding research capacity of large research networks within health care delivery systems requires strategically training both embedded and external investigators in necessary skills for this purpose. Researchers new to these settings frequently lack the skills and specialized knowledge conducive to multi-site and multi-disciplinary research set in delivery systems. This report describes the goals and components of the Cancer Research Network (CRN) Scholars Program, a 26-month training program developed to increase the capacity for cancer research conducted within the network's participating sites, its progression from training embedded investigators to a mix of internal and external investigators, and the content evolution of the training program. The CRN Scholars program was launched in 2007 to assist junior investigators from member sites develop independent and sustainable research programs within the CRN. Resulting from CRN's increased emphasis on promoting external collaborations, the 2013 Scholars program began recruiting junior investigators from external institutions committed to conducting delivery system science. Based on involvement of this broader population and feedback from prior Scholar cohorts, the program has honed its focus on specific opportunities and issues encountered in conducting cancer research within health care delivery systems. Efficiency and effectiveness of working within networks is accelerated by strategic and mentored navigation of these networks. Investing in training programs specific to these settings provides the opportunity to improve multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional collaboration, particularly for early-stage investigators. Aspects of the CRN Scholars Program may help inform others considering developing similar programs to expand delivery system research or within large, multi-disciplinary research networks.
-
Informed consent in psychiatric researchRoth, Loren H.; Appelbaum, Paul S.; Lidz, Charles W.; Benson, Paul; Winslade, William J. (1987-01-01)