Skip to main content

Table 4 Ethical considerations: incentive use, establishing trust, transparency, benefits, results sharing

From: Research ethics and refugee health: a review of reported considerations and applications in published refugee health literature, 2015-2018

Ethical Consideration

N (%)

Use of Incentives

 Yes

66 (22.9)

 Unknown/not mentioned

222 (77.1)

Investigator(s) Transparency1

 Mentioned

166 (57.6)

 Unknown/not mentioned

122 (42.4)

Establishment of Trust by Investigators2

 Yes

114 (39.6)

 Unknown/not mentioned

174 (60.4)

Stakeholder Engagement (not mutually exclusive, n = 262)3

 Health clinics/hospitals

110 (38.2)

 Community members

88 (30.6)

 Local nonprofit/nongovernmental organization

71 (24.7)

 Community leaders/elders

43 (14.9)

 National government

29 (10.1)

 Local government

22 (7.6)

 Local private business

6 (2.1)

 Other

28 (9.7)

 Unknown/not mentioned

26 (9.0)

Community Assisted with Recruitment

 Yes

145 (50.4)

 Unknown/not mentioned

143 (49.6)

Cultural Practices Considered (not mutually exclusive, n = 121)

 Gender norms

49 (17.0)

 Permission to conduct

22 (7.6)

 Social hierarchy/order

23 (8.0)

 Age hierarchy

9 (3.1)

 Religious norms

10 (3.5)

 Other

41 (14.2)

 Unknown/not mentioned

167 (58.0)

Results Presented to Participants

 Yes

25 (8.7)

 Unknown/not mentioned

263 (91.3)

Results Presented to Community

 Yes

9 (3.1)

 Unknown/not mentioned

279 (96.9)

Social Justice/Health Equity Considered

 Mentioned

60 (20.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

228 (79.2)

Community Empowerment

 Trainings

21 (7.3)

 Community education

20 (6.9)

 Resources provided

12 (4.2)

 Provided a voice

2 (0.7)

 Unknown/not mentioned

233 (80.9)

Intervention Provided to Larger Community (n = 39)

 Yes

5 (12.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

34 (87.2)

Support of Intervention Post-investigation

 Yes

35 (12.2)

 Unknown/not mentioned

253 (87.8)

Community Provided with Resources to Continue Intervention

 Yes

11 (3.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

277 (96.2)

  1. 1 Of those who mentioned transparency (not mutually exclusive): 58 (41.1%) held pre-investigation meetings, 54 (38.3%) ensured translation of consent/materials, 50 (35.5%) explicitly explained participation was voluntary
  2. 2 Of those who mentioned establishing trust (not mutually exclusive): 67 (58.8%) worked through community partners, 23 (20.2%) built relationships with community before investigation, 20 (17.5%) took actions to respect cultural norms
  3. 3 Type of stakeholder engagement: 144 (50.0%) recruitment, 36 (12.5%) data collection, 25 (8.7%) funding, 7 (2.4%) investigation design, 103 (35.8%) multiple of the previously mentioned types of engagement, 5 (1.7%) other forms of engagement