Ethics in research involving prisoners

An Analysis of PubMed Abstracts From 1946 to 2021 to Identify Organizational Affiliations in Epidemiological Criminology: Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

Epidemiological criminology refers to health issues affecting incarcerated and nonincarcerated offender populations, a group recognized as being challenging to conduct research with. Notwithstanding this, an urgent need exists for new knowledge and interventions to improve heath, justice, and social outcomes for this marginalized population.

OBJECTIVE

To better understand research outputs in the field of epidemiological criminology, we examined the lead author's affiliation by analyzing peer-reviewed published outputs to determine countries and organizations (eg, universities, governmental and nongovernmental organizations) responsible for peer-reviewed publications.

METHODS

We used a semiautomated approach to examine the first-author affiliations of 23,904 PubMed epidemiological studies related to incarcerated and offender populations published in English between 1946 and 2021. We also mapped research outputs to the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index to better understand whether there was a relationship between research outputs and the overall standard of a country's justice system.

RESULTS

Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland, and Denmark) had the highest research outputs proportional to their incarcerated population, followed by Australia. University-affiliated first authors comprised 73.3% of published articles, with the Karolinska Institute (Sweden) being the most published, followed by the University of New South Wales (Australia). Government-affiliated first authors were on 8.9% of published outputs, and prison-affiliated groups were on 1%. Countries with the lowest research outputs also had the lowest scores on the Rule of Law Index.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important information on who is publishing research in the epidemiological criminology field. This has implications for promoting research diversity, independence, funding equity, and partnerships between universities and government departments that control access to incarcerated and offending populations.

Comparison of Audiovisual and Paper-Based Materials for 1-Time Informed Consent for Research in Prison: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Few studies are available on informed consent (IC) among detained persons, even with ethics being a critical aspect of prison research. In IC research, audiovisual material seems to improve understanding and satisfaction compared with conventional paper-based material, but findings remain unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To compare audiovisual and paper-based materials for 1-time general IC for research in prisons.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional randomized clinical trial was conducted in 2 corrections facilities in Switzerland (an adult prison and a juvenile detention center). The study was conducted from December 14, 2019, to December 2, 2020, in the adult prison and from January 15, 2020, to September 9, 2021, in the juvenile detention center. In the adult prison, study participation was offered to detained persons visiting the medical unit (response rate, 84.7%). In the juvenile detention center, all newly incarcerated adolescents were invited to participate (response rate, 98.0%).

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive paper-based conventional material or to watch a 4-minute video. Materials included the same legal information, as required by the Swiss Federal Act on Research Involving Human Beings.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was acceptance to sign the IC form. Secondary outcomes included understanding, evaluation, and time to read or watch the IC material.

RESULTS

The study included 190 adults (mean [SD] age, 35.0 [11.8] years; 190 [100%] male) and 100 adolescents (mean [SD] age, 16.0 [1.1] years; 83 [83.0%] male). In the adult prison, no significant differences were found between groups in acceptance to sign the IC form (77 [81.1%] for paper-based material and 81 [85.3%] for audiovisual material; P = .39) and to evaluate it (mean [SD] correct responses, 5.09 [1.13] for paper-based material and 5.01 [1.07] for audiovisual material; P = .81). Understanding was significantly higher in the audiovisual material group (mean [SD] correct responses, 5.09 [1.84]) compared with the paper-based material group (mean [SD] correct responses, 4.61 [1.70]; P = .04). In the juvenile detention center, individuals in the audiovisual material group were more likely to sign the IC form (44 [89.8%]) than the paper-based material group (35 [68.6%], P = .006). No significant difference was found between groups for understanding and evaluation. Adults took a mean (SD) of 5 (2) minutes to read the paper material, and adolescents took 7 (3) minutes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Given the small benefit of audiovisual material, these findings suggest that giving detained adults and prison health care staff a choice regarding IC material is best. For adolescents, audiovisual material should be provided. Future studies should focus on increasing understanding of the IC process.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05505058.

Developing an Evidence-Based Nutrition Curriculum for Correctional Settings

People experiencing incarceration in the United States face numerous health disparities before, during, and after imprisonment, with prison conditions often exacerbating the severity of their health conditions. Within prisons, inadequate nutrition may contribute to the high prevalence of chronic disease such as diabetes and heart disease. This article discusses the development of an evidence-based nutrition curriculum for prison settings, informed by literature on current nutrition in prison, as well as previous health interventions designed to improve the health of incarcerated individuals. The curriculum was developed using guidelines for an effective health curriculum from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Furthermore, this article discusses the theoretical foundations and effective pedagogies for teaching health materials in prison and provides further recommendations for improving nutrition in correctional institutions.

Ethical guidance for health research in prisons in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the extent, range and nature of the published literature, prison policies and technical guidance relating to the ethical conduct of health research in prisons in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping Review.

METHODS

We adhered to the five stages of the scoping review iterative process: identifying the research question, identifying relevant studies, study selection, charting the data, and collating, summarizing and content analysis of polices. Disagreements around allocation of content were resolved through team discussion. We also appraised the quality of the included articles.

RESULTS

We included nine records that examined the ethical aspects of the conduct of health research in prisons in LMICs; eight of these were peer-reviewed publications, and one was a toolkit. Despite the unique vulnerabilities of this group, we could find no comprehensive guidelines on the ethical conduct of health research in prisons in LMICs.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of the world's imprisoned populations are in LMICs, and they have considerable health needs. Research plays an important role in addressing these needs and in so doing, will contribute to the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. With regards to health research, imprisoned people in LMICs are 'left behind'; there is a lack of clear, prison-focused guidance and oversight to ensure high quality ethical health research so necessary in LMICs. There is an urgent need for prison health experts to work with health research ethics experts and custodial practitioners for procedural issues in the development of prison-specific ethical guidance for health research in LMICs aligned with international standards.

Can a Soldier Say No to an Enhancing Intervention?

Technological advancements have provided militaries with the possibility to enhance human performance and to provide soldiers with better warfighting capabilities. Though these technologies hold significant potential, their use is not without cost to the individual. This paper explores the complexities associated with using human cognitive enhancements in the military, focusing on how the purpose and context of these technologies could potentially undermine a soldier’s ability to say no to these interventions. We focus on cognitive enhancements and their ability to also enhance a soldier’s autonomy (i.e., autonomy-enhancing technologies). Through this lens, we explore situations that could potentially compel a soldier to accept such technologies and how this acceptance could impact rights to individual autonomy and informed consent within the military. In this examination, we highlight the contextual elements of vulnerability—institutional and differential vulnerability. In addition, we focus on scenarios in which a soldier’s right to say no to such enhancements can be diminished given the special nature of their work and the significance of making better moral decisions. We propose that though in some situations, a soldier may be compelled to accept said enhancements; with their right to say no diminished, it is not a blanket rule, and safeguards ought to be in place to ensure that autonomy and informed consent are not overridden.

Self-Evaluation Dimensions of Criminal Activity and Prospects Simulation of Persons Serving Custodial Sentence

The article presents the self-evaluation indicators of the causes of criminal behavior committed by persons serving a custodial sentence at X institution, focusing on imprisonment and modeling of life prospects after release from prison. The main idea of the study is to reveal the subjective self-evaluation experience of persons serving custodial sentence with regard to criminal activity and simulation of future prospects. The scientific discussion of the article presents incarcerated persons’ (N = 58) subjective self-evaluation data collected during the qualitative research and their theoretical-practical interpretation. Convicted persons’ subjective self-evaluation and prospects simulation data enable stating certain features showing the discrepancy between their disposition and achievement of resocialization goals. This confirms the insufficiently interiorized reasonableness of punishment, personal perception, and realized motivation to change.

From Squirrels to Biological Weapons: The Early History of Tularemia

After George McCoy accidentally discovered a new infection in 1911 while investigating bubonic plague in squirrels, he transmitted the disease to experimental animals and isolated the causative organism. He called it Bacterium tularense, after Tulare County, California. In 1919, Edward Francis determined that an infection called "deer-fly fever" was the same disease, naming it "tularemia." He demonstrated that it occurred in wild rabbits and inadvertently showed that it was highly infectious, for he and all his laboratory assistants contracted the illness. This characteristic led to studies of its potential as a biological weapon, including involuntary human experimentation by Japan among civilian, political and military prisoners, and its probable use in warfare during World War II. Later, in the United States, voluntary human experimentation occurred in the 1950s-1960s with penitentiary inmates and non-combatant soldiers. Soviet Union scientists allegedly developed a vaccine-resistant strain, which they tested as a biological weapon in 1982-1983.

National Human Research Ethics: A Preliminary Comparative Case Study of Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden

Although international research is increasing in volume and importance, there remains a dearth of knowledge on similarities and differences in “national human research ethics” (NHREs), that is, national ethical guidelines (NEGs), Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), and research stakeholder’ ethical attitudes and behaviors (EABs). We begin to address this situation by reporting upon our experiences in conducting a multinational study into the mental health of children who had a parent/carer in prison. The study was conducted in 4 countries: Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Data on NHREs were gathered via a questionnaire survey, two ethics-related seminars, and ongoing contact between members of the research consortium. There was correspondence but even more so divergence between countries in the availability of NEGs and IRBs and in researcher’ EABs. Differences in NHREs have implications particularly in terms of harmonization but also for ethical philosophy and practice and for research integrity.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Knowledge of Federal Regulations for Mental Health Research Involving Prisoners

BACKGROUND

Given their vulnerability to coercion and exploitation, prisoners who participate in research are protected by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulations designed to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Knowledge of these regulations is essential for researchers who conduct and institutional review boards (IRBs) that oversee mental health research in correctional settings.

METHODS

We explored depth of knowledge of OHRP regulations by surveying a nationwide sample of: (1) mental health researchers who have conducted research in correctional settings; (2) mental health researchers who have conducted research in non-correctional settings; (3) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in correctional settings; (4) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in in non-correctional settings; and (5) IRB prisoner representatives. Participants responded to a 10-item knowledge questionnaire based on OHRP regulations.

RESULTS

1,256 participants provided usable data (44.9% response rate). Results revealed limited knowledge of OHRP regulations, with a mean across groups of 44.1% correct answers. IRB Prisoner representatives, IRB members, and researchers with correctional experience demonstrated the highest levels of knowledge; however, even these participants were able to correctly answer only approximately 50% of the items.

CONCLUSIONS

Although awareness that prisoners are a protected population and that different regulatory procedures apply to research with them is likely to be universal among researchers and IRB members, our findings reveal limited mastery of the specific OHRP regulations that are essential knowledge for researchers who conduct and IRB members who oversee mental health research in correctional settings. Given well-documented health and healthcare disparities, prisoners could potentially benefit greatly from mental health research; increasing knowledge of the OHRP regulations among researchers and IRB members is a crucial step toward meeting this important public health goal.

Ethical issues in forensic psychiatry in penal and other correctional facilities

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Forensic mental health practitioners, especially psychiatrists working in jails, prisons or other correctional facilities, face special problems that are unlike others encountered in bioethics.

RECENT FINDINGS

Literature published during the past year shows that the forensic psychiatrist has to adhere to role clarity: as a physician, he is primarily obligated to the treatment and well being of the incarcerated patients and is not exclusively an agent of social control. Moreover, the general conditions in a therapeutic setting (e.g. dealing with medical confidentiality) have to be clear and transparent to the patients. Different ethical models building a fitting framework for forensic practice are used.

SUMMARY

Forensic psychiatric practice in penal and other correctional facilities poses particular ethical dilemmas. There is a great need for international humanitarian law, which serves both to protect vulnerable prisoners and to shield health professionals who treat prisoners with respect and dignity from abuse or penalty. It must be a common objective to find the right balance between protection from exploitation and access to research beneficial to prisoners.

Health care provision in prisons: a review on European and international guidelines

Health care provision in prisons is an area of increasing international concern. The spectrum of health problems which prisoners may bring to prison is wide and in many cases prevalence is greater than in the general population.The profound knowledge of delicate issues such as medical confidentiality and informed consent of the patient, with special refer to infectious disease, hunger strike and prison research is necessary in the prison working environment. In the following paragraphs the European and International conventions and guidelines on the matter are discussed.