Emed important in regards to protecting the patient who would not necessarily know the applicable state licensing board, should he or she, for example, want to seek redress. A complete void in the state laws exists, however, in considering the use of the Internet to deliver and evaluate psychological interventions in the context of research. Although a myriad of factors distinguish the research context from clinical service delivery, including the process of consent, and the scope, intent, and focus of the intervention and research, these factors may be difficult to understand by local ethics boards that rely on state laws. In the case of PF-04418948 web Web-MAP, it was important to educate the local ethics board about the scope of the study and nature of the interaction with study participants to allay any concerns that a provider atient relationship was being PM01183 site established across state lines with study participants. Moreover, although ethics boards have legal and regulatory backgrounds, they may lack specific expertise in e-health research, and much of the terminology is not readily understandable. For example, in the case of Web-MAP, the support provided by the online coach was misconstrued as psychological diagnosis and treatment, in part, because the board did not understand what asynchronousTable I. Guidelines for Researchers Carrying Out Online Research With ChildrenAction required Possible solutionsArea of online researchEthical issuesOnline interventions Avoid coercion when determining incentive plans. Full parental consent and child assent must be sought derstanding of study procedures, risks, and benefits. Participants should be fully debriefed as to the purpose of the studyRecruitmentVerify participant identitiesParticipant identities can be verified through the use of a gatekeeper (e.g., referring health care provider), or by speaking over the phone with caregivers. During recruitment and consent procedures, inform participants that their relationship with their hospital and their doctor will not be affected by their choice of participation. Consider participant socioeconomic status Seek consent on paper preferably. If this is not possible then over the phone or digitally from parents via email or fax (Fox et al., 2007). Back-questioning can be used to ensure participants have an adequate unUse of multiple debrief methods (e.g. email, pop-up debrief and follow up via the mode in which you recruited the participant perferably in a way in which participants can ask questions of the researcher).Informed consent andHenderson, Law, Palermo, and EcclestondebriefingPrivacy And confidentiality Researchers have a responsibility to ensure participant safetyParticipant data should be protected Use of a password protected secure website which delievers the intervention. If possible, participant identities should not be connected to program-use data. The researcher’s responsibility to ensure participant safety should not go beyond the limitation of their role as a researcher (O’Connor, 2010). Researchers conducting online intervention studies often have limited or no case history for the participant and do not have an established patient rovider relationship. In the case of disclosure about abuse, self-harm, sucidial thoughts or behaviour which may harm others, standardized critical incident procedures should be followed. Critical incident procedures should be approved by the institutional ethics committee where the study is being carried out and should.Emed important in regards to protecting the patient who would not necessarily know the applicable state licensing board, should he or she, for example, want to seek redress. A complete void in the state laws exists, however, in considering the use of the Internet to deliver and evaluate psychological interventions in the context of research. Although a myriad of factors distinguish the research context from clinical service delivery, including the process of consent, and the scope, intent, and focus of the intervention and research, these factors may be difficult to understand by local ethics boards that rely on state laws. In the case of Web-MAP, it was important to educate the local ethics board about the scope of the study and nature of the interaction with study participants to allay any concerns that a provider atient relationship was being established across state lines with study participants. Moreover, although ethics boards have legal and regulatory backgrounds, they may lack specific expertise in e-health research, and much of the terminology is not readily understandable. For example, in the case of Web-MAP, the support provided by the online coach was misconstrued as psychological diagnosis and treatment, in part, because the board did not understand what asynchronousTable I. Guidelines for Researchers Carrying Out Online Research With ChildrenAction required Possible solutionsArea of online researchEthical issuesOnline interventions Avoid coercion when determining incentive plans. Full parental consent and child assent must be sought derstanding of study procedures, risks, and benefits. Participants should be fully debriefed as to the purpose of the studyRecruitmentVerify participant identitiesParticipant identities can be verified through the use of a gatekeeper (e.g., referring health care provider), or by speaking over the phone with caregivers. During recruitment and consent procedures, inform participants that their relationship with their hospital and their doctor will not be affected by their choice of participation. Consider participant socioeconomic status Seek consent on paper preferably. If this is not possible then over the phone or digitally from parents via email or fax (Fox et al., 2007). Back-questioning can be used to ensure participants have an adequate unUse of multiple debrief methods (e.g. email, pop-up debrief and follow up via the mode in which you recruited the participant perferably in a way in which participants can ask questions of the researcher).Informed consent andHenderson, Law, Palermo, and EcclestondebriefingPrivacy And confidentiality Researchers have a responsibility to ensure participant safetyParticipant data should be protected Use of a password protected secure website which delievers the intervention. If possible, participant identities should not be connected to program-use data. The researcher’s responsibility to ensure participant safety should not go beyond the limitation of their role as a researcher (O’Connor, 2010). Researchers conducting online intervention studies often have limited or no case history for the participant and do not have an established patient rovider relationship. In the case of disclosure about abuse, self-harm, sucidial thoughts or behaviour which may harm others, standardized critical incident procedures should be followed. Critical incident procedures should be approved by the institutional ethics committee where the study is being carried out and should.
