Who Speaks for Me? Addressing Variability in Informed Consent Practices for Minimal Risk Research Involving Foster Youth.

Mary V Greiner, Sarah J Beal, Antonio Allen, Vikash Patel, Jareen Meinzen-Derr, Armand H Matheny Antommaria
{"title":"Who Speaks for Me? Addressing Variability in Informed Consent Practices for Minimal Risk Research Involving Foster Youth.","authors":"Mary V Greiner,&nbsp;Sarah J Beal,&nbsp;Antonio Allen,&nbsp;Vikash Patel,&nbsp;Jareen Meinzen-Derr,&nbsp;Armand H Matheny Antommaria","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Youth in protective custody (e.g.. foster care) are at higher risk for poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared with those who are not in custody. These differences may be due in part to the lack of research on the population to create evidence-based recommendations for health care delivery. A potential contributor to this lack of research is difficulties in obtaining informed consent for empirical studies in this population. The objective of this study was to describe the approaches to obtaining informed consent in minimal risk studies of foster youth and provide recommendations for future requirements.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the informed consent approaches in published minimal risk research involving youth in foster care. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, and EBMR. Inclusion criteria were: studies conducted in the United States, included current foster youth, minimal risk, peer reviewed, and published in English. Full text was reviewed, and individuals required to consent and assent were extracted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty-nine publications from 33 studies were identified. Studies required 0 to 3 individuals to consent. Individuals required to give consent included case workers (16, 48%), foster caregivers (12, 36%), biological parents (7, 21%), judges (5, 15%), and guardian ad litems (2, 6%). Twenty-nine (88%) studies required the youth's assent. The studies used 14 different combinations of individuals. One (3%) study utilized a waiver of consent.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is no consistent approach for obtaining informed consent for foster youth to participate in minimal risk research. Consent should ideally involve individuals with legal authority and knowledge of the individual youth's interests and should not be burdensome. Consensus regarding consent requirements may facilitate research involving foster youth.</p>","PeriodicalId":15847,"journal":{"name":"Journal of health disparities research and practice","volume":"11 4","pages":"111-131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8351591/pdf/nihms-1057841.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of health disparities research and practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Youth in protective custody (e.g.. foster care) are at higher risk for poorer physical and mental health outcomes compared with those who are not in custody. These differences may be due in part to the lack of research on the population to create evidence-based recommendations for health care delivery. A potential contributor to this lack of research is difficulties in obtaining informed consent for empirical studies in this population. The objective of this study was to describe the approaches to obtaining informed consent in minimal risk studies of foster youth and provide recommendations for future requirements.

Methods: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to characterize the informed consent approaches in published minimal risk research involving youth in foster care. We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Embase, ERIC, Scopus, and EBMR. Inclusion criteria were: studies conducted in the United States, included current foster youth, minimal risk, peer reviewed, and published in English. Full text was reviewed, and individuals required to consent and assent were extracted.

Results: Forty-nine publications from 33 studies were identified. Studies required 0 to 3 individuals to consent. Individuals required to give consent included case workers (16, 48%), foster caregivers (12, 36%), biological parents (7, 21%), judges (5, 15%), and guardian ad litems (2, 6%). Twenty-nine (88%) studies required the youth's assent. The studies used 14 different combinations of individuals. One (3%) study utilized a waiver of consent.

Conclusions: There is no consistent approach for obtaining informed consent for foster youth to participate in minimal risk research. Consent should ideally involve individuals with legal authority and knowledge of the individual youth's interests and should not be burdensome. Consensus regarding consent requirements may facilitate research involving foster youth.

Abstract Image

谁为我说话?在涉及寄养青年的最小风险研究中解决知情同意实践的可变性。
背景:受保护性拘留的青少年(例如……与没有被拘留的人相比,被寄养的人身心健康状况较差的风险更高。这些差异可能部分是由于缺乏对人口的研究,无法为卫生保健提供基于证据的建议。研究缺乏的一个潜在原因是在这一人群中进行实证研究时难以获得知情同意。本研究的目的是描述在寄养青少年最小风险研究中获得知情同意的方法,并为未来的要求提供建议。方法:我们对文献进行了系统回顾,以描述已发表的涉及寄养青少年的最小风险研究中的知情同意方法。我们检索了PubMed、CINAHL、PsychINFO、Embase、ERIC、Scopus和EBMR。纳入标准是:在美国进行的研究,包括目前的寄养青少年,风险最小,同行评审,并以英文发表。全文审阅,并摘录了需要同意和同意的个人。结果:从33项研究中确定了49份出版物。研究需要0到3个人同意。需要表示同意的个人包括个案工作者(16人,48%)、寄养照料者(12人,36%)、亲生父母(7人,21%)、法官(5人,15%)和法定监护人(2人,6%)。29项(88%)研究需要青少年的同意。这些研究使用了14种不同的个体组合。一项(3%)研究使用了放弃同意。结论:对于参与最小风险研究的寄养青少年,没有一致的方法获得知情同意。理想情况下,同意应涉及具有法律权威和了解青年个人利益的个人,而不应成为负担。关于同意要求的共识可以促进涉及寄养青年的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信