Volunteer research subjects experience of participation in research on a novel diagnostic technology for breast cancer

Qualitative Health Research

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 81-92

  Morris, Norma ^a   Schneider, Margaret ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast; Cancer; Constructivism; Medical; Relationships; Research participation; Researcher participant; Technology

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ALTRUISM; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; GREAT BRITAIN; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PROFESSIONAL-PATIENT RELATIONS; RESEARCH SUBJECTS; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 74049108231     PISSN: 10497323     EISSN: 15527557     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1049732309355592     Document Type: Review

References (39)

1. Abma, T.A., Nierse, C.J., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2009). Patients as partners in responsive research: Methodological notions for collaborations in mixed research teams. Qualitative Health Research, 19, 401-415.
2. Armstrong, V., & Morris, N. (in press). Boundary setting in breast cancer research: A study of the experience of women volunteer research subjects. Sociology of Health and Illness.
3. British Psychological Society. (2000). Code of conduct, ethical principles and guidelines. Leicester, United Kingdom: Author.
4. Corrigan, O. (2003). Empty ethics: The problem with informed consent. Sociology of Health and Illness, 25, 768-792.
5. Corrigan, O., & Tutton, R. (2006). Whats in a name? Subjects, volunteers, participants and activists in clinical research. Clinical Ethics, 1, 101-104.
6. Cox, K. (2000). Enhancing cancer clinical trial management: Recommendations from a qualitative study of trial participants experiences. Psycho-Oncology, 9, 314-322.
7. Department of Health. (2001). Research governance framework for health and social care. London: Author.
8. Dixon-Woods, M., Ashcroft, R.E., Jackson, C.J., Tobin, M.D., Kivits, J., Burton, P.R., et al. (2007). Beyond "misunderstanding": Written information and decisions about taking part in a genetic epidemiology study. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 2212-2222.
9. Dixon-Woods, M., Wilson, D., Jackson, C., Cavers, D., & Pritchard-Jones, K. (2008). Human tissue and "the public": The case of childhood cancer tumor banking. BioSocieties, 3, 57-80.
10. Featherstone, K., & Donovan, J. (2002). " Why dont they just tell me straight, why allocate it?" The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Social Science & Medicine, 55, 709-719.
11. Gill, R. (2000). Discourse analysis. In M. Bauer & G. Gaskell (Eds.), Qualitative researching with text, image and sound. London: Sage.
12. Goffman, E. (1959 / 1971). The presentation of self in everyday life. London: Penguin.
13. Hayden, C. (2007). Taking as giving: Bioscience, exchange, and the politics of benefit-sharing. Social Studies of Science, 37, 729-758.
14. Heaven, B., Murtagh, M., Rapley, T., May, C., Graham, R., Kaner, E., et al. (2006). Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Education and Counselling, 62, 260-270.
15. Jasanoff, S. (1996). Beyond epistemology: Relativism and engagement in the politics of science. Social Studies of Science, 26, 393-418.
16. Latour, B. (1983). Nous navons jamais ©t© modernes: Essais danthropologie sym©trique [We have never been modern: ĝ€symmetric anthropology essays]. Paris: Editions La D©couverte.
17. Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2000). Performing technologys stories: On social constructivism, performance and performativity. Technology and Culture, 41, 6765-6775.
18. Lowton, K. (2005). Trials and tribulations: Understanding motivations for clinical research participation amongst adults with cystic fibrosis. Social Science & Medicine, 61, 1854-1865.
19. Madsen, S.M., Holm, S., & Riis, P. (2007). Attitudes towards clinical research among cancer trial participants and non-participants: An interview study using a grounded theory approach. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33, 234-240.
20. Mead, M. (1969). Research with human beings: A model derived from anthropological field practice. Daedalus, 98, 361-386.
21. Mol, A.-M. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
22. Morris, N., Armstrong, V., & Balmer, B. (2009). Constructing a safe research environment: Technology talk between researchers and volunteer research subjects. Health, Risk and Society, 11 (2). 99-116.
23. Morris, N., & Balmer, B. (2006). Volunteer human subjects understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment. Social Science & Medicine, 62, 998-1008.
24. Mulkay, M. (1993). Rhetorics of hope and fear in the great embryo debate. Social Studies of Science, 23, 721-742.
25. Oliver, S., Milne, R., Bradburn, J., Buchanan, P., Kerridge, L., Walley, T., et al. (2001). Involving consumers in a needs-led research programme: A pilot project. Health Expectations, 4, 18-28.
26. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, A.T. (2005). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
27. Parsons, T. (1969). Research with human subjects and the "professional complex." Daedalus, 98, 325-360.
28. Peel, E., Parry, O., Douglas, M., & Lawton, J. (2006). " Its no skin off my nose": Why people take part in qualitative research. Qualitative Health Research, 16, 1335-1349.
29. Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric and social construction. London: Sage.
30. Ross, S., Grant, A., Counsell, C., Gillespie, W., Russell, I., & Prescott, R. (1999). Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: A systematic review. Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 1143-1156.
31. Russell, M., Moralejo, D., & Burgess, E. (2000). Paying research subjects: Participants perspectives. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26, 126-130.
32. Smith, R. (1999, 18 September). Take your partners for the dance (Editorial). British Medical Journal, 3190, 0.
33. Snowdon, C., Garcia, J., & 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 & Medicine, 45, 1337-1355.
34. Titmuss, R.M. (1971). The gift relationship: From human blood to social policy (reissued 1997 ed.) London: LSE Books.
35. Tutton, R. (2002). Gift relationships in genetics research. Science as Culture, 11, 523-542.
36. Van Lente, H. (2000). Forceful futures: From promise to requirement. In N. Brown, B. Rappert, & A. Webster (Eds.), Contested futures (pp. 43-63). Aldershot, United Kingdom: Ashgate.
37. Woolgar, S. (1991). Configuring the user: The case of usability trials. In J. Law (Ed.), A sociology of monsters (pp. 57-99). London: Routledge.
38. World Medical Association. (2002). Declaration of Helsinki. Washington, DC: Author.
39. Zuiderent-Jerak, T., & Jensen, C.B. (2007). Editorial introduction: Unpacking intervention in science and technology studies. Science as Culture, 16, 227-235.