Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Research Ethics Monthly | ISSN 2206-2483

Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research?

Posted by Dr Gary Allen
in Human Research Ethics
on April 28, 2021
0 Comments
Keywords Australia,Beneficence,Ethical review,Good practice,Institutional Responsibilities,Justice,National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007 updated 2018),Researcher responsibilities,Respect for persons,Vulnerable groups
A diverse group of positive people

Mark Israel, Deborah Hersh and Ciara Shiggins

Advocates in health research of Consumer and Community Involvement – a concept better known in the United Kingdom as Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) – argue that it offers a way of building knowledge that incorporates the experiences and perspectives of a range of stakeholders, including patients and members of the public. Such involvement can improve the experience for research participants, enhance the process of informed consent, aid research impact and dissemination. It might also avoid the waste of resources on findings that have little relevance to end users or that cannot be implemented. Adopting consumer and community involvement focuses on justice, both procedural in relation to fair treatment during the research, and distributive in terms of fair allocation of the benefits and possible burdens of research. This position has found favour among consumer advocates, researchers, editors and research funders. As a result, consumer and community involvement is increasingly expected and is a bureaucratic prerequisite for research to occur in some countries. For example, within the United Kingdom evidence of patient and public involvement is essential for those seeking National Institute for Health Research funding. Similarly, in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) and the Consumer Health Forum of Australia have developed the Statement on Consumer and Community Involvement in Health and Medical Research (2016).

Consumer and community involvement and Research Ethics

However, our guidelines on research ethics have not kept up. Human research ethics statements traditionally focus on the relationship between researchers and research participants, particularly on protecting participant rights, and ensuring that they are treated properly. Consumer and community involvement requires new thinking because of the shift in that relationship. When patients and members of the public are partners, the ethical questions and choices that arise in relation to a study will diverge from those associated with individuals who are research participants. We suggest consumer and community involvement extends the remit for research ethics – raising ethical questions early, even before the design of a project, and having effects on the public long after a project has ended. We also argue that the shift towards acceptance and expectation of consumer and community involvement demands an equivalent shift in ethical considerations right across the research process.

In a recent article focused on consumer and community involvement with people who have aphasia (Hersh et al., 2021), we used the 2018 revision of the Australian National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007) as a framework to guide an in-depth consideration of the ethics associated with consumers and members of the community as research partners. We examined the need to stretch ethical thinking to a point before Element 1 in the National Statement to prepare both researchers and partners for their collaboration, roles, and relationship.

A large circular graphic about Element 0

Ethics and Element Zero

Genuine consumer and community involvement occurs from the very start of a research initiative, when research aims and questions are identified, issues are prioritised and funding is sought. However, this can be difficult to achieve. If a research team is submitting a grant application, is that application based on discussions with partners? If so, in that early stage how might these partners have been prepared, invited, involved and perhaps paid for their time considering the grant application itself was still in preparation? These partners may have additional requirements that need to be understood, acknowledged, and accommodated to ensure an inclusive and accessible process. This is the case when working with people with aphasia, a language disorder acquired after brain damage (such as stroke) that can affect spoken language, understanding, reading, or writing. Preparation is required for researchers to enable a real partnership and to avoid tokenism, a superficial involvement simply to satisfy expectations of funders, editors or research ethics committees. In our work (Hersh et al., 2021), we argue that the National Statement needs to be amended to consider what happens before Element 1. We call this stage Element Zero.

We assert that groundwork is required to prepare both researchers and potential research partners to understand and take full advantage of consumer and community involvement. Partners need to be fully informed about what research projects entail so that they can exercise their autonomy, share their expertise to benefit others, take part in shaping the research agenda, and are neither exploited nor unfairly advantaged in the distribution of resources that might flow from projects.

Research teams should consider what they mean by consumer and community involvement and what roles different people might play within it; they should also reflect on their motivations for conducting it. They could consider different possible levels of involvement for consumers and community members – if their research benefits from consultation (asking for views and opinions), collaboration (working together as co-researchers more deeply embedded in the project over time), or a user-controlled approach (where a community sets an agenda and also enrols researchers to work with it) (Health Research Authority/INVOLVE, 2016). Potential roles and responsibilities should be established in the early stages of developing ideas about research projects, prior to applications for funding. If left until later, the research questions, design, timeframe, and budget may no longer be negotiable. Underpinning these efforts is the understanding that they permit a truly respectful research partnership and relationship, two-way learning, and mutual benefit. This includes encouraging researchers to educate themselves about how to accommodate partners with physical, sensory, cognitive, or communication needs.

Element Zero is not simply about preparing individuals but also considers preparation for, and with, community groups or organisations. This work should enable greater collective confidence for community members to act as representatives and advocates on projects. Empowering people to have a say and be prepared to take roles in research respects their autonomy and human right to have a positive impact on service provision and life quality. It is also relevant to community-based participatory research (Hacker, 2013) outside the health area. When research is conducted on this basis it might contribute to a broader political agenda of decolonising methodologies (Smith, 2012; AIATSIS, 2020), a stimulus for critiquing how dominant cultures shape what and who are deemed worthy of research and funding, what knowledges are privileged, what relationships between researcher and researched are acceptable, and to whom researchers and their institutions should be accountable.

Element Zero supports merit and integrity, and a genuine rationale for involving consumers and communities as research partners. It gives attention to the need for research teams to discuss expectations, attitudes, benefits, and challenges in relation to consumer and community involvement and choices within potential research studies. Element Zero also offers a challenge to those who draft ethics guidelines to acknowledge what is missing from the Australian National Statement and how this can be rectified.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

References

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS) (2020) AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research. https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/aiatsis-code-ethics.pdf

Hacker, K A (2013) Community-Based Participatory Research. London: SAGE.

Health Research Authority/INVOLVE (2016) Impact of public involvement on ethical aspects of research. https://www.invo.org.uk/posttypepublication/public-involvement-in-researchimpact-on-ethical-aspects-of-research

Hersh D, Israel M & Shiggins C (2021) The ethics of Patient and Public Involvement across the research process: Towards partnership with people with aphasia. Aphasiology DOI: 10.1080/02687038.2021.1896870

National Health and Medical Research Council (2007, updated 2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018

National Health and Medical Research Council (2016). Statement on Consumer and Community involvement in Health and Medical Research. Consumers Health Forum of Australia. https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/statement-consumer-and-community-involvement-health-and-medical-research

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (2015) Going the extra mile: Improving the nation’s health and wellbeing through public involvement in research. http://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/going-the-extra-mile-a-strategic-review-of-74/8*9-+public-involvement-in-the-nationalinstitute-for-health-research/2739.

Smith, L T (2012) Decolonizing methodologies. Research and indigenous peoples (2nd ed.). Zed Books.

Acknowledgements

This article draws on our work (Hersh et al., 2021) published in the Special Issue of Aphasiology on the topic of Patient and Public Involvement. Figure One is reproduced from that article and is published here with permission from Taylor & Francis Ltd. We thank Lauren Wilson and Melissa Green for their help designing the Figure.

This post may be cited as:
Israel, M., Hersh, D. & Shiggins, C. (28 April) Element Zero: What’s missing from the National Statement to support Consumer and Community Involvement in health research? Research Ethics Monthly. Retrieved from: https://ahrecs.com/element-zero-whats-missing-from-the-national-statement-to-support-consumer-and-community-involvement-in-health-research/ 

Related reading

Heeding our stories: Getting the most from a reference group in disability research

A poor call and two missed opportunities, but otherwise not a bad proposed revision to NS s5

Why autism research needs more input from autistic people

We respect you… we just don’t need to hear from you anymore: Should the consumer and their community participate in research as partners instead of just being subjects?

Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations

Consumer Co-design for End of Life Care Discharge Project

Statement on Consumer and Community Participation in Health and Medical Research (the Statement on Participation) – NHMRC

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

About the Corresponding Author

Mark Israel

Sp-user Link
Mark is a senior consultant and co-founder of AHRECS
Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in Sp-mail User

Other Authors

Deborah Hersh

Deborah Hersh is an Associate Professor in Speech Pathology at Edith Cowan University, Adjunct Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide, and Fellow of Speech Pathology Australia. She is currently the Chairperson of the Australian Aphasia Association.

Sp-user
Twitter
Sp-mail
Ciara Shiggins

Ciara is a speech and language therapist and post-doctoral research fellow within in the Centre of Research Excellence in Aphasia Recovery and Rehabilitation (www.latrobe.edu.au/aphasiacre), based at La Trobe University, Melbourne. She also holds an honorary fellowship with the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.

Sp-user
Twitter
Sp-mail

About the blog

The senior consultants started AHRECS in 2007. We were looking for a way of responding to requests for advice on research ethics and integrity from the government, health and education sectors read more…

Comment rules

We decided to include comment functionality in the Blog because we want to encourage the Research Integrity and Human Research Ethics communities to contribute to public discourse about resourcing and improving practice. read more…

Related Links

Complaints against Research Ethics Monthly

Request a Takedown

Submission Guidelines

About the Research Ethics Monthly

About subscribing to the Research Ethics Monthly

A smiling group of multi-racial researchers

Random selected image from the AHRECS library. These were all purchased from iStockPhoto. These are images we use in our workshops and Dr Allen used in the GUREM.

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in