Psychomethodology: The Psychology of Human Participation in Science

Moyer, Anne

doi:10.1891/1939-7054.2.2.59

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 86 publications

(100 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, study procedures or the wording of study materials that are viewed as off-putting or intrusive by research participants should motivate investigators to develop more acceptable methods. The challenges noted here are certainly not unique to psycho-oncology, as difficulties related to recruitment, reactance, and retention may be found in any area of research 93. For instance, in a survey of 114 multicenter clinical trials, less than one-third recruited their target sample size within the time originally specified, and around one-third required extensions to do so 94.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons to Be Learned From 25 Years of Research Investigating Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients

Moyer¹,

Knapp-Oliver²,

Sohl³

et al. 2009

The Cancer Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Conducting rigorous psychosocial intervention research with cancer patients has many challenges including encouraging them to join studies, asking them to engage in interventions or be part of control conditions, and to provide data over follow-up assessments. Here, we highlight valuable insights regarding such challenges provided by investigators studying psychosocial interventions for cancer patients. Handling these skillfully has important implications for the internal and external validity of this research and the ethical treatment of participants. Challenges noted in research reports included in a systematic review of 25 years of research (comprising 488 unique projects) investigating interventions designed to enhance cancer patients' quality of life were compiled. Among the difficulties mentioned was the fact that patients may not feel the need for psychosocial interventions and thus may not be interested in joining an intervention study. Patients who do feel the need for such interventions may be deterred from joining trials by the prospect of being randomized to a non-preferred group; if they do join a trial, participants may be disappointed, drop out, or seek compensatory additional assistance if they are assigned to a control group. Apart from randomization, other aspects of research may be off-putting to participants or potential participants, such as the language of consent forms or the intrusiveness of questions being asked. Potential remedies, such as research awareness interventions, monetary incentives, partnering with cancer support organizations, and using designs that take preferences into account merit consideration and further research inquiry.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lessons to Be Learned From 25 Years of Research Investigating Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients

Moyer¹,

Knapp-Oliver²,

Sohl³

et al. 2009

The Cancer Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…24 As one researcher put it, “People allocated to less desirable control conditions where they feel deprived of their preferred treatment…may lose heart, or act up.” 25 This phenomenon is most likely to occur in nonblinded trials, but “even when participants do not know their treatment group, they often guess or suspect, correctly or incorrectly,” the group to which they were assigned. 26 …”

Section: Evidence Of Subversive Behaviormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…25 This phenomenon is most likely to occur in nonblinded trials, but "even when participants do not know their treatment group, they often guess or suspect, correctly or incorrectly," the group to which they were assigned. 26 Patients who see trial participation as a means to obtain better treatment commit a variety of subversive acts. Some enter trials with the specific intent to drop out early if their symptoms do not improve within a certain time.…”

Section: Patient-subjects In Clinical Trialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Subversive Subjects: Rule-Breaking and Deception in Clinical Trials

Dresser

2013

J. Law. Med. Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research subjects do not always conform to research requirements. When their personal interests conflict with the demands of participation, some subjects surreptitiously break the rules. These subjects are subversive — they undermine the research endeavor. In rejecting the restrictions research imposes, subversive subjects diminish the value of research results. From one vantage point, subversive subjects engage in unethical behavior. They create risks to themselves and others; they also disregard ethical responsibilities to adhere to research agreements and tell the truth. At the same time, subversive subjects expose ethical problems in the design and conduct of clinical trials. Features of the research environment create fertile ground for subject subversion. Intensified policing and guidance are two common strategies for reducing subject subversion, but collaborative reforms are more consistent with the partnership model of clinical research.

show abstract

“…This is important considering the widespread use of the RCT design (Jadad & Rennie, 1998), and the weight of their conclusions in informing health care practices. The need to further our understanding of the psychology of the human participant in research has led to calls to conduct deliberate research on this topic (Moyer, 2009).…”

Section: Effects Of Participant Preferences In Unblinded Randomizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is important to note that, although some publications report negative participant responses (e.g., Shapiro et al, 2002), these are often the result of serendipitous findings. The RCT itself has been the subject of investigation in a limited number of studies, and participant responses to being research subjects has had little direct inquiry (Moyer, 2009). This study was the first to systematically investigate participant reactions to randomization in a RCT for which they could not be blinded to condition, required active participation and engagement, and for which, importantly, participants could develop condition preferences.…”

Section: Study Limitations and Strengthsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Participant Preferences in Unblinded Randomized Controlled Trials

Floyd

Moyer

2010

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Little research has deliberately investigated the effects of participant preferences for treatment condition in unblinded randomized controlled trials. We designed a study with a non-patient sample comparing a randomized arm to a preference arm of the same trial to investigate: (1) whether having a choice to select one's preference affects feelings about participation, belief in treatment effectiveness, treatment contamination, intervention adherence and engagement, and trial attrition; and (2) the interaction of preferences and treatment assignment on these variables. Contamination and attrition were rare and excluded from analyses. There was no effect of choice. Participants mismatched to preference felt less positive about their experience, but this did not affect belief in treatment, adherence, or engagement. Stronger effects may occur for patient populations.

show abstract

Psychomethodology: The Psychology of Human Participation in Science

Cited by 3 publications

References 86 publications

Lessons to Be Learned From 25 Years of Research Investigating Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients

Lessons to Be Learned From 25 Years of Research Investigating Psychosocial Interventions for Cancer Patients

Subversive Subjects: Rule-Breaking and Deception in Clinical Trials

Effects of Participant Preferences in Unblinded Randomized Controlled Trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About