Are all ‘research fields’ equal? Rethinking practice for the use of data from crowd-sourcing market places

New technologies like large-scale social media sides (e.g., Facebook and Twitter) and crowdsourcing services (e.g., Amazon Mechanical Turk, Crowdflower, Clickworker) impact social science research and provide many new and interesting avenues for research. The use of these new technologies for research has not been without challenges and a recently published psychological study on Facebook led to a widespread discussion on the ethics of conducting large-scale experiments online. Surprisingly little has been said about the ethics of conducting research using commercial crowdsourcing market places. In this paper, I want to focus on the question of which ethical questions are raised by data collection with crowdsourcing tools. I briefly draw on implications of internet research more generally and then focus on the specific challenges that research with crowdsourcing tools faces. I identify fair-pay and related issues of respect for autonomy as well as problems with power dynamics between researcher and participant, which has implications for ‘withdrawal-withoutprejudice’, as the major ethical challenges with crowdsourced data. Further, I will to draw attention on how we can develop a ‘best practice’ for researchers using crowdsourcing tools

Key stakeholder perceptions about consent to participate in acute illness research: a rapid, systematic review to inform epi/pandemic research preparedness

Background A rigorous research response is required to inform clinical and public health decision-making during an epi/pandemic. However, the ethical conduct of such research, which often involves critically ill patients, may be complicated by the diminished capacity to consent and an imperative to initiate trial therapies within short time frames. Alternative approaches to taking prospective informed consent may therefore be used. We aimed to rapidly review evidence on key stakeholder (patients, their proxy decision-makers, clinicians and regulators) views concerning the acceptability of various approaches for obtaining consent relevant to pandemic-related acute illness research. Methods We conducted a rapid evidence review, using the Internet, database and hand-searching for English language empirical publications from 1996 to 2014 on stakeholder opinions of consent models (prospective informed, third-party, deferred, or waived) used in acute illness research. We excluded research on consent to treatment, screening, or other such procedures, non-emergency research and secondary studies. Papers were categorised, and data summarised using narrative synthesis. Results We screened 689 citations, reviewed 104 full-text articles and included 52. Just one paper related specifically to pandemic research. In other emergency research contexts potential research participants, clinicians and research staff found third-party, deferred, and waived consent to be acceptable as a means to feasibly conduct such research. Acceptability to potential participants was motivated by altruism, trust in the medical community, and perceived value in medical research and decreased as the perceived risks associated with participation increased. Discrepancies were observed in the acceptability of the concept and application or experience of alternative consent models. Patients accepted clinicians acting as proxy-decision makers, with preference for two decision makers as invasiveness of interventions increased. Research regulators were more cautious when approving studies conducted with alternative consent models; however, their views were generally under-represented. Conclusions Third-party, deferred, and waived consent models are broadly acceptable to potential participants, clinicians and/or researchers for emergency research. Further consultation with key stakeholders, particularly with regulators, and studies focused specifically on epi/pandemic research, are required. We highlight gaps and recommendations to inform set-up and protocol development for pandemic research and institutional review board processes

The implications of autonomy: Viewed in the light of efforts to uphold patients dignity and integrity

This article focuses on Danish patients’ experience of autonomy and its interplay with dignity and integrity in their meeting with health professionals. The aim is to chart the meanings and implications of autonomy for persons whose illness places them in a vulnerable life situation. The interplay between autonomy and personal dignity in the meeting with health care staff are central concepts in the framework. Data collection and findings are based on eight qualitative semi-structured interviews with patients. Patients with acute, chronic, and life threatening diseases were represented including surgical as well as medical patients. The values associated with autonomy are in many ways vitalising, but may become so dominant, autonomy seeking, and pervasive that the patient's dignity is affected. Three types of patient behaviour were identified. (1) The proactive patient: Patients feel that they assume responsibility for their own situation, but it may be a responsibility that they find hard to bear. (2) The rejected patient: proactive patients take responsibility on many occasions but very active patients are at risk of being rejected with consequences for their dignity. (3) The knowledgeable patient: when patients are health care professionals, the patient's right of self-determination was managed in a variety of ways, sometimes the patient's right of autonomy was treated in a dignified way but the opposite was also evident. In one way, patients are active and willing to take responsibility for themselves, and at the same time they are “forced” to do so by health care staff. Patients would like health professionals to be more attentive and proactive