Involve guidance from a child or pediatric psychologist. Assessment can be done over the phone using structured or semi-structured interviews. Referrals can include provision of contact information for crisis hotlines, as well as recommending that the participant go access emergency health services if immediate intervention is needed. Results of assessments and recommendations should be shared with caregivers in accordance with mandated reporting laws. Currently, state laws in the U.S. do not exist regarding the use of the Internet to evaluate psychological interventions delivered in the context of research. Therefore, local ethics boards may have difficulty understanding differences between provision of clinical services online and evaluation of an online psychological intervention for research purposes. It is essential to work closely with local ethics boards to provide education about this distinction as well as clarification of any terminology that may be unfamiliar to ethics board staff with limited e-health expertise.(continued)Participant safetyDelivery of online psycholog- Psychology licensure would not be ical interventions Lurbinectedin manufacturer required in most instances to evaluate an online psychological intervention for research purposesTable I. ContinuedArea of online research Action required Possible solutionsEthical issuesOnline focus groups and message Verify participant identitites Avoid coercion mining incentive plans As for online interventions, full parental and child assent should be sought, and participants should be fully debriefed as to the purpose of the study pant was recruited). Researchers are required to protect the data of all research participantsRecruitmentParticipant identities can be verified through the use of a gatekeeper (e.g., referrring health care provider), or by speaking with caregivers. If gatekeepers are used (e.g., healthcare providers), assure participants that their participation in the study will not impact their relationship with the gatekeeper. Consider participant socioeconomic status when deterIf the research participants are not in a geographical location where it is possible to seek face-to-face PM01183MedChemExpress Lurbinectedin consent then researchers should seek consent over the phone or by email (e.g., Fox et al., 2007). Back-questioning can be used to ensure participants have an adequate understanding of study procedures, risks and benefits. Use of multiple debrief methods (e.g., email, pop-up debrief and follow-up via the mode in which the particiResearchers should be aware of the lasting or “sticky” nature of anything posted online when designing their research. To ensure the full protection of participants’ data in synchronous focus groups, these groups should only be hosted on secure servers and when possible on institutional servers so that the researchers have full control over the data access. Participant identities can be protected by enforcing “board rules” that instruct participants not to reveal their name, geographical location, or any other identifying informa-boardsInformed consent anddebriefingPrivacy and confidentialityParticipant safety ensure participant safety.Researchers have a responsibility totion. Any posts that include identifying information can be deleted by a moderator. As the researcher is hosting the focus group they have a responsibility to ensure participant safety. This responsibility should not go beyond the limitation of the researcher’s role as a researcher (O’Connor, 2010), operating with limi.Involve guidance from a child or pediatric psychologist. Assessment can be done over the phone using structured or semi-structured interviews. Referrals can include provision of contact information for crisis hotlines, as well as recommending that the participant go access emergency health services if immediate intervention is needed. Results of assessments and recommendations should be shared with caregivers in accordance with mandated reporting laws. Currently, state laws in the U.S. do not exist regarding the use of the Internet to evaluate psychological interventions delivered in the context of research. Therefore, local ethics boards may have difficulty understanding differences between provision of clinical services online and evaluation of an online psychological intervention for research purposes. It is essential to work closely with local ethics boards to provide education about this distinction as well as clarification of any terminology that may be unfamiliar to ethics board staff with limited e-health expertise.(continued)Participant safetyDelivery of online psycholog- Psychology licensure would not be ical interventions required in most instances to evaluate an online psychological intervention for research purposesTable I. ContinuedArea of online research Action required Possible solutionsEthical issuesOnline focus groups and message Verify participant identitites Avoid coercion mining incentive plans As for online interventions, full parental and child assent should be sought, and participants should be fully debriefed as to the purpose of the study pant was recruited). Researchers are required to protect the data of all research participantsRecruitmentParticipant identities can be verified through the use of a gatekeeper (e.g., referrring health care provider), or by speaking with caregivers. If gatekeepers are used (e.g., healthcare providers), assure participants that their participation in the study will not impact their relationship with the gatekeeper. Consider participant socioeconomic status when deterIf the research participants are not in a geographical location where it is possible to seek face-to-face consent then researchers should seek consent over the phone or by email (e.g., Fox et al., 2007). Back-questioning can be used to ensure participants have an adequate understanding of study procedures, risks and benefits. Use of multiple debrief methods (e.g., email, pop-up debrief and follow-up via the mode in which the particiResearchers should be aware of the lasting or “sticky” nature of anything posted online when designing their research. To ensure the full protection of participants’ data in synchronous focus groups, these groups should only be hosted on secure servers and when possible on institutional servers so that the researchers have full control over the data access. Participant identities can be protected by enforcing “board rules” that instruct participants not to reveal their name, geographical location, or any other identifying informa-boardsInformed consent anddebriefingPrivacy and confidentialityParticipant safety ensure participant safety.Researchers have a responsibility totion. Any posts that include identifying information can be deleted by a moderator. As the researcher is hosting the focus group they have a responsibility to ensure participant safety. This responsibility should not go beyond the limitation of the researcher’s role as a researcher (O’Connor, 2010), operating with limi.
