Are you sitting comfortably? perspectives of the researchers and the researched on "Being Comfortable"

Accountability in Research

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 111-133

  Morris, Norma ^a   Balmer, Brian ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Clinical research; Human experimentation; Optical imaging; Research participants; Volunteers

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; BREAST TUMOR; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN RELATION; INTERVIEW; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PERSONNEL; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; RESEARCH ETHICS; RESEARCH SUBJECT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; UNITED KINGDOM;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; ETHICS, RESEARCH; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; NONTHERAPEUTIC HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; PAIN; PATIENT SATISFACTION; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; RESEARCHER-SUBJECT RELATIONS; SHYNESS;

EID: 33746207760     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620600654019     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Appelbaum, P. S., Roth, L. H., Lidz, C. W., Benson, P., and Winslade, W. (1987). False hopes and best data - consent to research and the therapeutic misconception, Hastings Center Report, 17(2), 20-24.
2. British Medical, Journal (BMJ). (1999). Editorial: Take your partners for the dance. British Medical Journal 319(7212), 0.
3. British Psychological Society (BPS). (2000). Code of Conduct, Ethical Principles and Guidelines. Leicester: British Psychological Society.
4. Burman, E., and Parker, I. (1993). Introduction-discourse analysis: the turn to text. In E. Burman, and I. Parker (Eds.), Discourse Analytic Research: Repertoires and Readings of Texts in Action. London: Routledge.
5. Charles, C., Gafni, A., and Whelan, T. (1999). Decision-making in the physicianpatient encounter: Revisiting the shared treatment decision-making model, Social Science and Medicine, 49(5), 651-661.
6. Corrigan, O. (2004). Informed consent: the contradictory ethical safeguards in pharmacogenetics. In: R. Tutton and O. Corrigan (Eds.), Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London: Routledge.
7. DoH/Department of Health (2001). Research Governance Framework for Health and Social Care. London: Department of Health.
8. Edwards, S. J. L., Lilford, R. J., and Hewison, J. (1998). The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals, British Medical Journal, 317(7167): 1209-1212.
9. Gill, R. (2000). Discourse analysis. In: M. Bauer, and G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative Researching with Text, Image and Sound. London: Sage.
10. Goffman, E. (1971). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. London: Penguin.
11. Mead, M. (1969). Research with human beings: a model derived from anthropological field practice, Daedalus 98(2): 361-386.
12. Morris, N. and Balmer, B. (2006). Volunteer human subjects' understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment, Social Science and Medicine, 62(4): 998-1008.
13. National Commission (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical or Behavioural Research). Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
14. Parsons, T. (1969). Research with human subjects and the "Professional Complex", Daedalus, 98(2): 325-360.
15. Potter, J. (1996). Representing Reality: Discourse, Rhetoric and Social Construction. London: Sage.
16. Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., and Prescott, R. (1999). Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52(12): 1143-1156.
17. Small, N. (1998). The story as gift: researching AIDS in the welfare marketplace. In: R. S. Barbour, and G.Huby (Eds.), Meddling with Mythology: AIDS and the Social Construction of Knowledge (pp. 127-145). London and New York: Routledge.
18. Snowdon, C., Garcia, J., and Elbourne, D. (1997). Making sense of randomization; Responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial, Social Science and Medicine, 45(9): 1337-1355.
19. Stevenson, F., Cox, K., Britten, N., and Dundar, Y. (2004). A systematic review of the research on communication between patients and health care professionals about medicines: the consequences for concordance, Health Expectations, 7: 235-245.
20. Titmuss, R. M. (1971). The Gift Relationship: From Human Blood to Social Policy. London: LSE Books.
21. Tutton, R. and Corrigan, O. (Eds.), (2004). Genetic Databases: Socio-Ethical Issues in the Collection and Use of DNA. London: Routledge.
22. Tutton, R. (To appear). Constructing participation in genetic databases. Science, Technology, and Human Values.
23. Vanderpool, H. Y. (1996). The Ethics of Research Involving Human Subjects. Frederick, MD: University Pub. Group.
24. Weinstein, M. (2001). A public culture for guinea pigs: US human research subjects after the Tuskegee study, Science as Culture, 10(2): 195-223.
25. Werner, A., Widding Isaksen, L. W. L, and Malterud, K. (2004). "I am not the kind of woman who complains of everything": Illness stories on self and shame in women with chronic pain, Social Science and Medicine, 59(5): 1035-1045.
26. World Medical Association (WMA) (2002). Declaration of Helsinki. Washington DC: World Medical Association.
27. Zlotnik Shaul, R., Reid, L., Essue, B., Gibson, J., Marzinotto, V., and Daneman, D. (2005). Dissemination to research subjects: operationalizing investigator accountability, Accountability in Research, 12 (1): 1-16.