Dataset Information

How penalizing substance use in pregnancy affects treatment and research: a qualitative examination of researchers' perspectives.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Laws regulating substance use in pregnancy are changing and may have unintended consequences on scientific efforts to address the opioid epidemic. Yet, how these laws affect care and research is poorly understood.

Methods

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews using purposive and snowball sampling of researchers who have engaged pregnant people experiencing substance use. We explored views on laws governing substance use in pregnancy and legal reform possibilities. Interviews were double coded. Data were examined using thematic analysis.

Results

We interviewed 22 researchers (response rate: 71 per cent) and identified four themes: (i) harms of punitive laws, (ii) negative legal impacts on research, (iii) proposals for legal reform, and (iv) activism over time.

Discussion

Researchers view laws penalizing substance use during pregnancy as failing to treat addiction as a disease and harming pregnant people and families. Respondents routinely made scientific compromises to protect participants. While some have successfully advocated for legal reform, ongoing advocacy is needed.

Conclusion

Adverse impacts from criminalizing substance use during pregnancy extend to research on this common and stigmatized problem. Rather than penalizing substance use in pregnancy, laws should approach addiction as a medical issue and support scientific efforts to improve outcomes for affected families.

SUBMITTER: Shah SK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10332932 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How penalizing substance use in pregnancy affects treatment and research: a qualitative examination of researchers' perspectives.

Shah Seema K SK Perez-Cardona Leishla L Helner Khrystyna K Massey Suena H SH Premkumar Ashish A Edwards Renee R Norton Elizabeth S ES Rogers Cynthia E CE Miller Emily S ES Smyser Christopher D CD Davis Matthew M MM Wakschlag Lauren S LS

Journal of law and the biosciences 20230709 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Laws regulating substance use in pregnancy are changing and may have unintended consequences on scientific efforts to address the opioid epidemic. Yet, how these laws affect care and research is poorly understood.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews using purposive and snowball sampling of researchers who have engaged pregnant people experiencing substance use. We explored views on laws governing substance use in pregnancy and legal reform poss ...[more]

PMID: 37435609

Similar Datasets

Project description:We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was "significant." The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a "pressure to publish" with 62% of participants indicating it "always" or "very often" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.

Project description:BackgroundGenerally, there is unanimity about the value of community engagement in health-related research. There is also a growing tendency to view genetics and genomics research (GGR) as a special category of research, the conduct of which including community engagement (CE) as needing additional caution. One of the motivations of this study was to establish how differently if at all, we should think about CE in GGR.AimTo assess the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda on CE in GGR.MethodA cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at Makerere University and Uganda Virus Research Institute. Twenty-five individuals participated, the majority being male (sixteen). Participants included nineteen genetics and genomics researchers (researchers and research coordinators), two CE officers, three nurses and one nursing counsellor. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and analyzed in a thematic manner using NVivo version 12 Plus.Study findingsThirteen of the respondents had conducted CE in their GGR in either a geographical and disease-specific community. Some respondents said CE principles are the same and there is no need for special consideration for CE in GGR. Others gave ethical issues in GGR that require special consideration for CE in such research and these were categorized into six themes: GGR is new to communities, Difficulty in communicating GGR by the researchers, Genes are shared in communities, Cultural sensitivities against GGR, Community attitude toward GGR, Some GGR studies take long to end, and Negotiation of research benefits. Special considerations for CE when conducting GGR were suggested and categorized into seven themes: creating awareness of GGR in communities, obtaining both community acceptance and individual consent, CE team composition, involve communities in solving GGR challenges, prolong CE in some GGR, develop guidelines for CE in GGR, and legal considerations on GGR.ConclusionGGR was characterized by special issues that require special CE considerations for such research.

Project description:BackgroundThe return of genetics and genomics research results has been a subject of ongoing global debate. Such feedback is ethically desirable to update participants on research findings particularly those deemed clinically significant. Although there is limited literature, debate continues in African on what constitutes appropriate practice regarding the return of results for genetics and genomics research. This study explored perspectives and ethical considerations of Ugandan genomics researchers regarding the return of genetics and genomics research results.MethodsThis was a qualitative study that employed in-depth interviews. Thirty participants were purposively selected based on their expertise as genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis along the main themes of the study using a comprehensive thematic matrix, to identify common patterns arising from the narratives. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis.ResultsThe return of genetics and genomics research results was generally acceptable to researchers, and some indicated that they had previously returned individual or aggregate results to participants and communities. The main reasons cited for sharing research results with participants included their clinical utility, actionability and overall benefit to society. Ethical considerations for appropriate return of results included a need for effective community engagement, genetic counselling prior to disclosure of the results, adequate informed consent, and proper assessment of the implications of, or consequences of returning of results. However, the approaches to return of results were perceived as unstandardized due to the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks.ConclusionsThe return of genetic and genomic research results is generally acceptable to researchers despite the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results are highly divergent, hence the need for national ethical guidelines to appropriately regulate the practice.

Dataset Information

How penalizing substance use in pregnancy affects treatment and research: a qualitative examination of researchers' perspectives.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion

Publications

How penalizing substance use in pregnancy affects treatment and research: a qualitative examination of researchers' perspectives.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets