BackgroundIn recent years, reduced participation has been encountered across all epidemiological study designs, both in terms of non-response as well as refusal. A low response rate may reduce the statistical power but, more importantly, results may not be generalizable to the wider community.MethodsIn a telephone survey of 1413 randomly selected members of the Australian general population and of 690 participants sourced from previous studies, we examined factors affecting people’s stated willingness to participate in health research.ResultsThe majority of participants (61 %) expressed willingness to participate in health research in general but the percentage increased when provided with more specific information about the research. People were more willing if they have personal experience of the disease under study, and if the study was funded by government or charity rather than pharmaceutical companies.Participants from previous studies, older people and women were the groups most willing to participate. Younger men preferred online surveys, older people a written questionnaire, and few participants in any age and sex groups preferred a telephone questionnaire.ConclusionDespite a trend toward reduced participation rates, most participants expressed their willingness to participate in health research. However, when seeking participants, researchers should be concrete and specific about the nature of the research they want to carry out. The preferred method of recommended contact varies with the demographic characteristics.

Issues of power and consent, confidentiality, trust, and benefit, risks to researchers, and potential harm to participants, are all contested when working with different cultures and within environments marked by violence and insecurity. Difficulty resolving these dilemmas may paralyse ethics committees, may fail to give the guidance sought by researchers, and will not help populations who are among the world's most vulnerable. Even where efforts are made to respond to ethical guidelines and to improve practice, considerable impediments are present in many developing countries, including lack of formal ethical review structures in unstable settings, lack of required skills, limited political and institutional recognition of ethical issues, competing interests, and limitations in clinical and research practice (Elsayed 2004, Macklin 2004). In conflict settings, these limitations are more marked, and the responsibilities of the researcher for ethical practice are greater, but the mechanisms for oversight are weaker. Moreover, the constant focus on vulnerabilities and problems, and the often almost total lack of recognition of strengths and resilience, can further disempower already exploited groups and individuals. The capacity of refugees and communities in conflict to take an active role in the research process is seldom acknowledged, and undermines the potential for more innovative research which can help generate the evidence for better policy and practice.

It has been suggested that community advisory boards (CABs

Many assumptions are made about public willingness to participate in epidemiological research, yet few empirical studies have been conducted to ascertain whether such assumptions are correct. Our qualitative study of the public and of expert stakeholders leads us to suggest that people are generally prepared to participate in epidemiological research, particularly if it is conducted by a trusted public institution such as a government health department, charity, or university. However, there is widespread community distrust of research conducted or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Individuals are prompted to take part if the study concerns an illness they or a family member or friend have personally experienced or if they believe the research will confer a widespread public benefit. Preferences vary about the mode of contact for the research to be conducted. Willingness to participate in telephone surveys has decreased in recent years, and this may be a consequence of an increase in calls to homes by telemarketers and market researchers. Participants also stressed the importance of knowing where their names and contact details were sourced and suggested that this information be available to prospective study participants as a matter of course in the first approach or letter. We provide valuable information to epidemiologists in designing studies.