4.5 Article

Sharing qualitative research findings with participants: Study experiences of methodological and ethical dilemmas

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 82, 期 3, 页码 389-395

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2010.12.016

关键词

Member-check; Credibility; Qualitative research; Ethical dilemmas; Trustworthiness

资金

  1. Software AG Foundation, Germany

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Sharing qualitative research findings with participants. namely member-check, is perceived as a procedure designed to enhance study credibility and participant involvement. It is rarely used. however. and its methodological usefulness and ethical problems have been questioned. This article explores benefits and risks in applying member-check when studying healthcare topics, questioning the way it should be performed. Methods: We discuss researchers' experiences in applying member-check, using four examples from three different studies: healthcare-providers' experiences of working with sexual-abuse survivors: adolescents' exposure to domestic-violence, and delivering and receiving bad news. Results: Methodological and ethical difficulties can arise when performing member-check, challenging the day-to-day researcher-participant experience, and potentially, the physician-patient relationship. Conclusion: Applying member-check in healthcare settings is complex. Although this strategy has good intentions, it is not necessarily the best method for achieving credibility. Harm can be caused to participants. researchers and the doctor-patient relationship, risking researchers' commitment to ethical principles. Practice implications: Because participants' experience regarding member-check is difficult to predict, such a procedure should be undertaken cautiously. Prior to initiating member-check, researchers should ask themselves whether such a procedure is potentially risky for participants: and if anonymity cannot be guaranteed, use alternative procedures when needed. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据