Dataset Information

Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research.

ABSTRACT: There has been little empirical research into misconduct and misbehavior among community research workers who recruit and collect data in vulnerable and marginalized health populations and are also members of those same communities. We conducted qualitative interviews with community research workers and traditional research assistants to understand the context and consequences of misbehaviors that pose a threat to research ethics and data integrity. In our sample, more community research workers acknowledged engaging in research wrongdoing than did traditional research assistants. These behaviors were most prevalent among community research workers who were not well-integrated into the research team. We suggest best practices for investigators to promote an environment that supports research integrity in research projects that employ community research workers.

SUBMITTER: True G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3299002 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research.

True Gala G Alexander Leslie B LB Richman Kenneth A KA

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20110601 2

There has been little empirical research into misconduct and misbehavior among community research workers who recruit and collect data in vulnerable and marginalized health populations and are also members of those same communities. We conducted qualitative interviews with community research workers and traditional research assistants to understand the context and consequences of misbehaviors that pose a threat to research ethics and data integrity. In our sample, more community research workers ...[more]

PMID: 21680972

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:Develop a standardized simulation method to assess clinical skills of ICU providers. DESIGN:Simulation assessment. SETTING:Simulation laboratory. SUBJECTS:Residents, Critical Care Medicine fellows, acute care nurse practitioner students. INTERVENTIONS:Performance scoring in scenarios from multiple Critical Care Medicine competency domains. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Three-hundred eighty-four performances by 48 participants were scored using checklists (% correct) and holistic "global" ratings (1 [unprepared] to 9 [expert]). One-hundred eighty were scored by two raters. Mean checklist and global scores (± SD) ranged from 65.0% (± 16.3%) to 84.5% (± 17.3%) and 4.7 (± 1.4) to 7.2 (± 1.2). Checklist and global scores for Critical Care Medicine fellows and senior acute care nurse practitioner students (Experienced group, n = 26) were significantly higher than those for the Novice acute care nurse practitioner students (Novice group, n = 14) (75.6% ± 15.6% vs 68.8% ± 21.0% and 6.1 ± 1.6 vs 5.4 ± 1.5, respectively; p < 0.05). Residents (Intermediate group, n = 8) scored between the two (75.4% ± 18.3% and 5.7 ± 1.7). 38.5% of the Experienced group scored in the top quartile for mean global score, compared with 12.5% of the Intermediate and 7.1% of the Novice groups. Conversely, 50% of the Novice group scored in the lower quartile (< 5.3), compared with 37.5% of the Intermediate and 11.5% of the Experienced groups. Psychometric analyses yielded discrimination values greater than 0.3 for most scenarios and reliability for the eight-scenario assessments of 0.51 and 0.60, with interrater reliability of 0.71 and 0.75, for checklist and global scoring, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:The simulation assessments yielded reasonably reliable measures of Critical Care Medicine decision-making skills. Despite a wide range of performance, those with more ICU training and experience performed better, providing evidence to support the validity of the scores. Simulation-based assessments may ultimately prove useful to determine readiness to assume decision-making roles in the ICU.

Project description:ObjectiveDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, community health workers (CHWs) served as front-line workers in the COVID-19 response while maintaining community health services. We aimed to understand challenges faced by Rwanda's CHWs during a nationwide COVID-19 lockdown that occurred between March and May 2020 by assessing the availability of trainings, supplies and supervision while exploring perceived needs and challenges.Design and settingThis study was a mixed-method study conducted in three Rwandan districts: Burera, Kirehe and Kayonza.Main outcome and measureUsing data collected via telephone, we assessed the availability of trainings, supplies and supervision during the first national lockdown, while exploring perceived needs and challenges of CHWs who were engaged in COVID-19 response, in addition to their existing duties of delivering health services in the community.ResultsAmong the 292 quantitative survey participants, CHWs were responsible for a median of 55 households (IQR: 42-79) and visited a median of 30 households (IQR: 11-52) in the month prior to the survey (July 2020). In the previous 12 months, only 164 (56.2%) CHWs reported being trained on any health topic. Gaps in supply availability, particularly for commodities, existed at the start of the lockdown and worsened over the course of the lockdown. Supervision during the lockdown was low, with nearly 10% of CHWs never receiving supervision and only 24% receiving at least three supervision visits during the 3-month lockdown. In qualitative interviews, CHWs additionally described increases in workload, lack of personal protective equipment and COVID-specific training, fear of COVID-19, and difficult working conditions.ConclusionMany challenges faced by CHWs during the lockdown predated COVID-19 and persisted or were exacerbated during the pandemic. To promote the resilience of Rwanda's CHW system, we recommend increased access to PPE; investment in training, supervision and supply chain management; and financial compensation for CHWs.

Project description:ObjectivesTo explore community pharmacists and key stakeholders' perspectives and reflections on the community pharmacy workforce's preparedness for, and response to, COVID-19, including lessons for future public health crises.Design, setting and participantsQualitative study using semistructured interviews (via telephone or online videoconferencing platform), with community pharmacists and a range of key stakeholders (representing other health professions, professional/governing organisations concerned with community pharmacy and patient advocacy groups) from across Northern Ireland. Data were analysed using thematic analysis and constant comparison.ResultsThirty interviews were conducted with community pharmacists (n=15) and key stakeholders (n=15). Four themes were identified: (1) adaptation and adjustment (reflecting how community responded quickly to the need to maintain services and adjusted and adapted services accordingly); (2) the primary point of contact (the continuing accessibility of community pharmacy when other services were not available and role as a communication hub, particularly in relation to information for patients and maintaining contact with other healthcare professionals); (3) lessons learnt (the flexibility of community pharmacy, the lack of infrastructure, especially in relation to information technology, and the need to build on the pandemic experience to develop practice); and (4) planning for the future (better infrastructure which reinforced concerns about poor technology, coordination of primary care services and preparing for the next public health crisis). There was a general view that community pharmacy needed to build on what had been learnt to advance the role of the profession.ConclusionsThe strengths of community pharmacy and its contribution to healthcare services in the COVID-19 pandemic were noted by community pharmacists and acknowledged by key stakeholders. The findings from this study should inform the policy debate on community pharmacy and its contribution to the public health agenda.

Project description:ObjectivesWorkplace violence (WPV) against healthcare workers (HCWs) is a global issue. Our research aimed to elucidate the status and associated factors of WPV among front-line/non-front-line HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignThis cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs in Hangzhou City through multistage sampling from December 2020 to January 2021.ParticipantsThis study included 14 909 valid samples (N=3748 front-line HCWs and N=11 161 non-front-line HCWs).Primary and secondary outcome measuresWe assessed the WPV status by Chinese version of WPV questionnaire. Binary logistic regression model was established to examine the associated factors of front-line/non-front-line HCWs experiencing WPV.ResultsThe total WPV prevalence equalled 37.25% for front-line HCWs and 27.73% for non-front-line HCWs. Among front-line HCWs, females were less likely to experience WPV (OR 0.837, 95% CI 0.710 to 0.988), while individuals who were undergraduate (OR 1.251, 95% CI 1.061 to 1.541) and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.475, 95% CI 1.227 to 1.772; advanced: OR 1.693, 95% CI 1.294 to 2.216) were more likely to suffer from WPV; for non-front-line HCWs, individuals who aged over 50 years old (OR 0.721, 95% CI 0.563 to 0.969), had worked between 10 and 19 years (OR 0.847, 95% CI 0.749 to 0.958) and worked in the non-graded hospital (OR 0.714, 95% CI 0.614 to 0.832) had less chance to experience WPV, while individuals who had higher educational level (undergraduate: OR 1.323, 95% CI 1.179 to 1.484; ≥graduate: OR 1.519, 95% CI 1.217 to 1.895), were nurse (OR 1.142, 95% CI 1.031 to 1.265), and had higher professional title (intermediate: OR 1.458, 95% CI 1.297 to 638; advanced: OR 1.928, 95% CI 1.607 to 2.313) were more inclined to suffer from WPV (p all<0.05).ConclusionsThis study indicates that the prevalence of WPV among front-line HCWs is significantly higher than among non-front-line HCWs. Policy-makers should prioritise COVID-19 front-line HCWs, especially those with high educational levels and professional titles.

Project description:BackgroundData for front-line health-care workers and risk of COVID-19 are limited. We sought to assess risk of COVID-19 among front-line health-care workers compared with the general community and the effect of personal protective equipment (PPE) on risk.MethodsWe did a prospective, observational cohort study in the UK and the USA of the general community, including front-line health-care workers, using self-reported data from the COVID Symptom Study smartphone application (app) from March 24 (UK) and March 29 (USA) to April 23, 2020. Participants were voluntary users of the app and at first use provided information on demographic factors (including age, sex, race or ethnic background, height and weight, and occupation) and medical history, and subsequently reported any COVID-19 symptoms. We used Cox proportional hazards modelling to estimate multivariate-adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) of our primary outcome, which was a positive COVID-19 test. The COVID Symptom Study app is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04331509.FindingsAmong 2 035 395 community individuals and 99 795 front-line health-care workers, we recorded 5545 incident reports of a positive COVID-19 test over 34 435 272 person-days. Compared with the general community, front-line health-care workers were at increased risk for reporting a positive COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 11·61, 95% CI 10·93-12·33). To account for differences in testing frequency between front-line health-care workers and the general community and possible selection bias, an inverse probability-weighted model was used to adjust for the likelihood of receiving a COVID-19 test (adjusted HR 3·40, 95% CI 3·37-3·43). Secondary and post-hoc analyses suggested adequacy of PPE, clinical setting, and ethnic background were also important factors.InterpretationIn the UK and the USA, risk of reporting a positive test for COVID-19 was increased among front-line health-care workers. Health-care systems should ensure adequate availability of PPE and develop additional strategies to protect health-care workers from COVID-19, particularly those from Black, Asian, and minority ethnic backgrounds. Additional follow-up of these observational findings is needed.FundingZoe Global, Wellcome Trust, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, National Institutes of Health Research, UK Research and Innovation, Alzheimer's Society, National Institutes of Health, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, and Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness.

Dataset Information

Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research.

Publications

Misbehaviors of front-line research personnel and the integrity of community-based research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets