Answer

Responses

Response to Paula

Hello Paula, I agree with you on the different vulnerable populations, and it is interesting also to include fetuses and embryos. Indeed, they also require protection since any psychological effect on the mother, for instance, may affect the fetus growth and development. The role of the IRB is to examine the research approach and determine if there are negative impacts on the participants.

To contribute to your discussion, addressing ethical issues in selecting and conducting research on vulnerable populations consider a wide range of factors from one’s condition to the impacts that specific study approaches may have on the individual’s health. In line with World Health Organizations definition of the term health, it is broad and includes physical, emotional, and psychological welfare (Huq et al., 2016). Therefore, the ethical element of research should not only consider the ability of an individual to make a decision but also the effects that the study may have on the participant. For instance, studying veterans requires their consent, and the study survey or intervention should not induce memories especially for individuals who have been treated for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). In research, the effect of vulnerability is that it challenges the validity and alters the informed consent forms and process. However, in case IRB examines the research and ascertain that there is no harm or exploitation, the researcher may proceed provided all the study safeguards are in place (Lapid, Clarke, and Wright, 2019).

References

Huq, N., Chowdhury, T., Aziz, S., Mitra, D., & Haque, S. R. (2016). The Predictive Effect of Depression on Self Rated Health: A One Year Longitudinal Study Among Adult Population in Bangladesh. In Proceeding of the 2nd International Conference on Public Health (Vol. 2, pp. 40-47).

Lapid, M. I., Clarke, B. L., & Wright, R. S. (2019, March). Institutional Review Boards: What Clinician Researchers Need to Know. In Mayo Clinic Proceedings (Vol. 94, No. 3, pp. 515-525). Elsevier.

Response to Latoya

            Hello Latoya, you provide a sound justification of why rural community research can be classified as biased and involve vulnerable population. I agree with you that access to quality health in the rural sector is a significant challenge. Further, researchers should ensure that the study population understands what the research entails. This promotes the quality and reliability of the research.

To contribute to your discussion, there are a number of ways that the research in rural areas can be enhanced. Among these strategies is educating the participants prior to performing the actual research and cultural competence among the researcher. Considering the education approach, the researcher should go beyond providing an informed consent that explains the study and what is required from the individual (Sarker et al., 2016). Face to face explanations should also be factored in the awareness which promotes the participants’ understanding on what the study entails. Cultural competence, on the other hand, ensures that the researcher profoundly relates with the study participants which has a significant relationship with the acceptance rate of the research. As a core role of healthcare providers, advocacy is essential in addressing the health disparities by championing the equal access of quality health among different population and in particular the rural area (Chang, Simon, & Dong, 2016). In vulnerability, promoting the rural community awareness and understanding their cultures and beliefs fosters the development of research protections to their literacy. masterstroke in dealing with the mental health issues that surround us all.