Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies
Why do people cooperate with medical research? Findings from three studies
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.034
复制
发表时间：
2009-06-01
影响因子：
5.4
通讯作者：
Tarrant, Carolyn
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dixon-Woods, Mary;Tarrant, Carolyn
在本文中。我们将有关与医学研究合作的决定与有关参与研究的决定区分开来。我们对英国三个不同医学研究项目的人们选择合作的原因进行了实证和理论探索。三项研究中 128 名参与者的账户数据分析基于持续比较法。参与者的合作是因为他们认为他们将为“公共利益”做出贡献，但他们也想证明他们的决定是明智和安全的。他们的合作至关重要，因为他们相信研究人员将履行合作协议，不让参与者面临伤害或剥削的风险。尽管参与者普遍不了解研究监管制度的细节，但他们表现出普遍依赖监管作为日常生活的一个特征，这将为合作提供安全的环境。在他们对特定项目的评估中。参与者根据更具体的线索做出是否合作的判断，这些线索可以作为向他们保证研究人员分享合作意图的信号。这些线索包括组织和专业资格、参与研究招募人员的角色身份和可信度，以及监管系统规定的合理实践的明显迹象。因此，参与者利用了他们对比单纯研究广泛得多的机构领域的理解。我们认为，研究的社会组织是人们对研究合作做出判断的基础。合作可能是一种更有用的方式来思考人们如何参与研究参与等协作导向的行动，而不是目前占主导地位的个人主义模式。关注研究的制度背景对于理解合作成为可能至关重要，并且对于研究监管制度的设计具有重要意义。 (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
In this paper. we distinguish decisions about cooperation with medical research from decisions about research participation. We offer an empirical and theoretical exploration of why people in three different UK-based medical research projects chose to cooperate. Data analysis of the accounts of 128 participants across the three studies was based on the constant comparative method. Participants' cooperation was engaged by a perception that they would be contributing to the 'public good', but they also wanted to justify their decision as sensible and safe. Critical to their cooperation was their belief that researchers would fulfil their side of the cooperative bargain, by not exposing participants to risks of harm or exploitation. Although participants were generally unaware of the details of the regulatory regime for research, they demonstrated a generalised reliance on regulation as a feature of everyday life that would provide a safe context for cooperation. In their assessment of particular projects. participants made judgements about whether to cooperate based on more specific cues, which acted as signs to assure them that researchers shared their cooperative intentions. These cues included organisational and professional credentials, the role identities and perceived trustworthiness of those involved in recruiting to research, and visible signs of reasonable practice mandated by regulatory systems. Thus participants drew on their understandings of an institutional field that was much broader than that of research alone. We propose that the social organisation of research is fundamental to the judgements people make about cooperation with research. Cooperation may be a more useful way of thinking about how people come to engage in collaboratively oriented actions such as research participation, rather than currently dominant individualistic models. Attention to the institutional context of research is critical to understanding what makes cooperation possible, and has important implications for the design of regulatory regimes for research. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.