Abstract
Commonly, health research involves participants who may be considered vulnerable in some way, by virtue of their illness or health status, their age, or some other factor. Recruiting participants who are considered vulnerable has been the subject of much critical discussion, in terms of ensuring those voices are not excluded, but also in terms of ethics and protection. However, the notion of ‘vulnerability’ is contentious, and there has been some debate regarding which populations ought to be classified in this way. When including these groups in naturally occurring data collection, these issues are also relevant and important. Thus, the focus for the chapter is on this concept of vulnerability in qualitative health research, and the role that gatekeepers play in protecting them.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Alderson, P. (2004). Ethics. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett, & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (pp. 97–112). London: Sage.
Appleton, J. (1994). The concept of vulnerability in relation to Child Protection: Health visitors’ perceptions. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20, 1132–1140.
Bielby, P. (2008). Competence and vulnerability in biomedical research. New York, NY: Springer.
Bo Paludan, M., & Popplewell, R. (2013). Praxis Note 65: Turning voice into action. A discussion of three action research studies conducted by the Danish Children and Youth Network and their learning outcomes. Oxford: International NGO Training and Research Centre (INTRAC).
Castro-Gilliard, A. (2017). Pregnant women as “vulnerable populations”: The cost and a possible solution. Retrieved March 9, 2018, from http://www.vabioethics.com/content/2017/10/2/pregnant-women-as-vulnerable-populations-the-cost-and-a-possible-solution
Cemlyn, S. (2000). From neglect to partnership? Challenges for social services in promoting the welfare of traveller children. Child Abuse Review, 9, 349–363.
Coyne, I. (2010). Accessing children as research participants: examining the role of gatekeepers. Child: Care, Health and Development, 36(4), 452–454.
Dervin, F. (2016). Discourses of othering. In J. Tracy (Ed.), The international encyclopedia of social interaction (pp. 43–55). London: Palgrave Pivot.
Emmel, N., Hughes, K., Greenhalgh, J., & Sales, A. (2007). Accessing socially excluded people—Trust and the gatekeeper in the researcher-participant relationship. Sociological Research Online, 12(2). Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/12/2/emmel.html https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.1512
Fazel, S., Hayes, A., Bartellas, K., Clerici, M., & Trestman, R. (2016). The mental health of prisoners: A review of prevalence, adverse outcomes and interventions. Lancet Psychiatry, 3(9), 871–881.
Freeman, M., & Mathison, S. (2009). Researching children’s experiences. New York, NY: The Guildford Press.
Goward, P., Repper, J., Appleton, L., & Hagan, T. (2006). Crossing boundaries. Identifying and meeting the mental health needs of gypsies and travellers. Journal of Mental Health, 15(3), 315–327.
Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Wiles, R. (2004). Informed consent, gatekeepers & go-betweens. Paper presented at ‘The Ethics & Social Relations of Research’ conference (Sixth international conference on social science methodology). Amsterdam.
Heath, S., Charles, V., Crow, G., & Wiles, R. (2007). Informed consent, gatekeepers and go-betweens: Negotiating consent in child and youth-oriented institutions. British Educational Research Journal, 33(3), 403–417.
Jansson, D. (2005). Race, power, and internal orientalism in the US: Reflections on Edward Said and the responsibilities of intellectuals. The Arab World Geographer, 8(1–2), 32–45.
Krugman, S., & Shapiro, S. (1971). Experiments at the Willowbrook State School. The Lancet, 297(7706), 966–967.
Lawrie, B. (1983). Travelling families in East London—Adapting health visiting methods to a minority group. Health Visitor, 56, 26–28.
Levine, C., Fadden, R., Grady, C., Hammerschmidt, D., Eckenwiler, L., Sugarman, J., & Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics. (2004). The limitations of ‘vulnerability’ as a protection for human research participants. American Journal of Bioethics, 4, 44–49.
Liamputtong, P. (2007). Researching the vulnerable: A guide to sensitive research methods. London: Sage.
Lund, A., & Engelsrud, G. (2008). “I am not that old”: Inter-personal experiences of thriving and threats at a senior centre. Ageing and Society, 28(5), 675–692.
Mander, R. (1992). Seeking approval for research access: The gatekeeper’s role in facilitating a study of the care of the relinquishing mother. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 17, 1460–1464.
McCaffery, J. (2009). Gypsies and Travellers: Literacy, discourse and communicative practices. Compare, 39(5), 643–657.
Nickel, P. (2006). Vulnerable populations in research: The case of the seriously ill. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 27(3), 245–264.
Nordentoft, H., & Kappel, N. (2011). Vulnerable participants in health research: Methodological and ethical challenges. Journal of Social Work Practice, 25(3), 365–376.
O’Reilly, M., Ronzoni, P., & Dogra, N. (2013). Research with children: Theory and practice. London: Sage.
Peroni, L., & Timmer, A. (2013). Vulnerable groups: The promise of an emerging concept in European Human Rights Convention law. International Journal Constitutional Law, 11(4), 1056–1071.
Piercy, H., & Hargate, M. (2004). Social research on the under-16s: A consideration of the issues from a UK perspective. Journal of Child Health Care, 8(4), 253–263.
Reel, K. (2011). Clinical considerations for allied professionals on research ethics—Vulnerable research participant populations: Ensuring ethical recruitment and enrolment. Heart Rhythm, 8(6), 947–950.
Rogers, W., & Lange, M. (2013). Rethinking the vulnerability of minority populations in research. American Journal of Public Health, 103(12), 2141–2146.
Rogers, W., Mackenzie, C., & Dodds, S. (2012). Why bioethics needs a concept of vulnerability. International Journal of Fem Approaches Bioethics, 5(2), 11–38.
Ruof, M. (2004). Vulnerability, vulnerable populations, and policy. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 14(4), 411–425.
Shepard, M., & Mahon, M. (2002). Vulnerable families: Research findings and methodological challenges. Journal of Family Nursing, 8(4), 309–314.
Shivayogi, P. (2013). Vulnerable population and methods for their safeguard. Perspectives Clinical Research, 4(1), 53–57.
Smith, D., & Ruston, A. (2013). ‘If you feel that nobody wants you you’ll withdraw into your own’: Gypsies/Travellers, networks and healthcare utilisation. Sociology of Health & Illness, 35(8), 1196–1210.
Spiers, J. (2000). New perspectives on vulnerability using emic and etic approaches. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(3), 715–721.
Strong, T., & Zeman, D. (2005). Othering’ and ‘selving’ in therapeutic dialogue. European Journal of Psychotherapy, Counselling and Health, 7(4), 245–261.
Tisdall, E., & Davis, J. (2004). Making a difference? Bringing children’s and young people’s views into policy-making. Children and Society, 18, 131–142.
van der Zande, I., van der Graaf, R., Oudijk, M., & van Delden, J. (2017). Vulnerability of pregnant women in clinical research. Journal of Medical Ethics, 43(10), 657–663.
World Medical Association. (2008, October). WMA Declaration of Helsinki—Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects—59th WMA General Assembly. Seoul, Korea.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kiyimba, N., Lester, J.N., O’Reilly, M. (2019). Including Vulnerable Groups in Health Research. In: Using Naturally Occurring Data in Qualitative Health Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94839-3_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-94839-3_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-94838-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-94839-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)