The internet is widely used for health information and support, often by vulnerable people. Internet-based research raises both familiar and new ethical problems for researchers and ethics committees. While guidelines for internet-based research are available, it is unclear to what extent ethics committees use these. Experience of gaining research ethics approval for a UK study (SharpTalk), involving internet-based discussion groups with young people who self-harm and health professionals is described. During ethical review, unsurprisingly, concerns were raised about the vulnerability of potential participants. These were dominated by the issue of anonymity, which also affected participant safety and consent. These ethical problems are discussed, and our solutions, which included: participant usernames specific to the study, a closed website, private messaging facilities, a direct contact email to researchers, information about forum rules displayed on the website, a ‘report’ button for participants, links to online support, and a discussion room for forum moderators. This experience with SharpTalk suggests that an approach to ethics, which recognises the relational aspects of research with vulnerable people, is particularly useful for internet-based health research. The solutions presented here can act as guidance for researchers developing proposals and for ethics committees reviewing them.
- discussion groups
- ethics committees/consultation
- information technology
- research ethics
- suicide/assisted suicide
- technology/risk assessment
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Funding This paper presents independent research commissioned by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) under its Research for Innovation, Speculation and Creativity (RISC) Programme (grant reference number RC-RG-0407-10098). The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. SS and CO were partly supported during the writing of this paper by the NIHR CLAHRC for the Southwest Peninsula.
Competing interests None.
Ethics approval This study was conducted with the approval of the Southampton NHS REC with, This study was conducted with NHS REC approval.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Understanding factors influencing vulnerable older people keeping warm and well in winter: a qualitative study using social marketing techniques
- A mixed-methods study of challenges and benefits of clinical academic careers for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals
- Observational prospective study of social media, smartphone use and self-harm in a clinical sample of young people: study protocol
- Acceptability and feasibility pilot randomised controlled trial of medical skin camouflage for recovery of women prisoners with self-harm scarring (COVER): the study protocol
- Ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes among healthcare workers in the UK: UK-REACH ethico-legal research, qualitative research on healthcare workers’ experiences and stakeholder engagement protocol
- Collecting behavioural data using the world wide web: considerations for researchers
- EFFICHRONIC study protocol: a non-controlled, multicentre European prospective study to measure the efficiency of a chronic disease self-management programme in socioeconomically vulnerable populations
- Why collaborate with children in health research: an analysis of the risks and benefits of collaboration with children
- Challenges and solutions: surveying researchers on what type of community engagement and involvement activities are feasible in low and middle income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic
- Experiences of cancer immunotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ExCIm)—insights of people affected by cancer and healthcare professionals: a qualitative study protocol