» Articles » PMID: 24766858

Research Participation Effects: a Skeleton in the Methodological Cupboard

Overview
Publisher Elsevier
Specialty Public Health
Date 2014 Apr 29
PMID 24766858
Citations 65
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: There have been concerns about impacts of various aspects of taking part in research studies for a century. The concerns have not, however, been sufficiently well conceptualized to form traditions of study capable of defining and elaborating the nature of these problems. In this article we present a new way of thinking about a set of issues attracting long-standing attention.

Study Design And Setting: We briefly review existing concepts and empirical work on well-known biases in surveys and cohort studies and propose that they are connected.

Results: We offer the construct of "research participation effects" (RPE) as a vehicle for advancing multi-disciplinary understanding of biases. Empirical studies are needed to identify conditions in which RPE may be sufficiently large to warrant modifications of study design, analytic methods, or interpretation. We consider the value of adopting a more participant-centred view of the research process as a way of thinking about these issues, which may also have benefits in relation to research methodology more broadly.

Conclusion: Researchers may too readily overlook the extent to which research studies are unusual contexts, and that people may react in unexpected ways to what we invite them to do, introducing a range of biases.

Citing Articles

Evaluating the outcomes and patient experience of group and individual acupuncture in an NHS cancer care setting: a mixed-methods study.

Brass M, Charlesworth K Support Care Cancer. 2025; 33(3):171.

PMID: 39930107 DOI: 10.1007/s00520-025-09226-x.


Vaping to quit smoking: Qualitative study of people receiving opioid agonist treatment.

Kypri K, Austin E, Jackson M, Wright K, Shui A, Li A Drug Alcohol Rev. 2024; 44(1):254-266.

PMID: 39364693 PMC: 11742974. DOI: 10.1111/dar.13953.


Key Considerations for Designing Clinical Studies to Evaluate Digital Health Solutions.

Bolinger E, Tyl B J Med Internet Res. 2024; 26:e54518.

PMID: 38885020 PMC: 11217703. DOI: 10.2196/54518.


Systematic review of patients' and healthcare professionals' views on patient-initiated follow-up in treated cancer patients.

Dretzke J, Lorenc A, Adriano A, Herd C, Mehanna H, Nankivell P Cancer Med. 2024; 12(15):16531-16547.

PMID: 38771977 PMC: 10469665. DOI: 10.1002/cam4.6243.


Long-term impact of a community-based adapted boxing program on physical functioning and quality of life of individuals with Parkinson's disease.

Savoie F, Benoit S, Riesco E, Tanguay A NeuroRehabilitation. 2024; 54(3):473-484.

PMID: 38640181 PMC: 11091569. DOI: 10.3233/NRE-230382.


References
1.
Solomon R . An extension of control group design. Psychol Bull. 1949; 46(2):137-50. DOI: 10.1037/h0062958. View

2.
Canvin K, Jacoby A . Duty, desire or indifference? A qualitative study of patient decisions about recruitment to an epilepsy treatment trial. Trials. 2006; 7:32. PMC: 1770934. DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-7-32. View

3.
Hernan M . A definition of causal effect for epidemiological research. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2004; 58(4):265-71. PMC: 1732737. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2002.006361. View

4.
McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne D . Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 67(3):267-77. PMC: 3969247. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.015. View

5.
French D, Sutton S . Reactivity of measurement in health psychology: how much of a problem is it? What can be done about it?. Br J Health Psychol. 2010; 15(Pt 3):453-68. DOI: 10.1348/135910710X492341. View