ASSIGNMENT
Reply to at least two of your classmates. When replying to your peers, think about the ethical considerations related to research or working with a vulnerable population. Although the vulnerable share characteristics making them susceptible to health concerns, they remain unique. In the initial post, everyone discussed both strengths and weaknesses inherent to a specific vulnerable population.
What steps would you recommend to ensure that your peer’s vulnerable group is ethically protected throughout the research as well as the participation element of a community-based participatory research project (that is, shelter services, food banks, case management, support groups, etc.)?
Reply to at least two of your classmates on two separate days (minimum) utilizing at least two scholarly references per peer post.
Article #1 MH
Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR) is a type of research that is especially effective when conducting research with vulnerable populations, as members of the identified vulnerable population work together with the researchers (Murdaugh et al., 2019). When considering victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), CBPR could be profoundly impactful in addressing gaps in care and challenges in receiving care, as they will be active participants in the research process. That said, there could be challenges in engaging this population in CBPR, as many may be concerned about threats to their safety with participation in research regarding IPV (Cirici Amell et al., 2023). This discussion post will review the potential impact that CBPR could have when focusing on victims of IPV and how the APRN could develop a collaborative partnership with this community.
When working with victims of IPV, the APRN is in a unique role to develop a collocative relationship with the patient while performing a health assessment and working toward goals for the patient’s overall health and well-being (Murdaugh et al., 2019). While the experience may vary broadly from patient to patient, once engaged in care, victims of IPV may be excellent advocates for themselves and their health (Brosi et al., 2020). Similarly, health-related lifestyle strengths may include being exceptionally attuned to their needs and goals (Brosi et al., 2020). Health problems for this population likely will primarily depend on the type of partner violence that they were experiencing. That said, across different types of partner violence, a common theme is that the patient may have an overall lack of trust due to trauma and therefore have a poor connection to medical care (Cirici Amell et al., 2023). The potential tendency to avoid medical care can undoubtedly put this population in need, both if they need acute care for illness or injury and if they are missing preventive and routine care. Moreover, this population is at higher risk of engaging in high-risk sexual behaviors and substance use, putting their overall health at higher risk (Sullivan et al., 2018). Changes that could improve their quality of life could include participation in domestic violence groups and connections to other people with similar lived experiences, as well as domestic violence case workers who could help identify goals and resources to promote safety.
A significant benefit of implementing CBPR with victims of IPV would be the potential to build trust with healthcare providers and the opportunity to empower this population to have their voices heard and acknowledged. Given that this population is likely to have a strong sense of self-advocacy and intuition, victims of IPV have the potential to make remarkable participants in a CBRP as the research program builds on the participants’ strengths (Brosi et al., 2020). Despite the possible benefits of CBRP for victims of IPV, there are also some potential drawbacks to consider. As safety and anonymity will likely be a primary concern for participants, there may be an overall hesitation to participate, especially given a potential mistrust in healthcare providers and the healthcare system (Cirici Amell et al., 2023). With guaranteed confidentiality and established trust, this vulnerable population has the potential to play a powerful role in CBRP.
Reference:
Brosi, M., Rolling, E., Gaffney, C., & Kitch, B. (2020). Beyond resilience: Glimpses into women’s posttraumatic growth after experiencing intimate partner violence. American Journal of Family Therapy, 48(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926187.2019.1691084
Cirici Amell, R., Soler, A. R., Cobo, J., & Soldevilla Alberti, J. M. (2023). Psychological consequences and daily life adjustment for victims of intimate partner violence. International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 58(1), 6–19. https://doi.org/10.1177/00912174211050504
Murdaugh, C., Parsons, M., Pender, N. (2019). Health Promotion in Nursing Practice. (8th Ed.). Pearson Education.
Sullivan, T. P., Weiss, N. H., Price, C., Pugh, N., & Hansen, N. B. (2018). Strategies for coping with individual PTSD symptoms: Experiences of African American victims of intimate partner violence. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice & Policy, 10(3), 336–344. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000283
654 words
Article #2 CK
My perception of the substance use disorder (SUD) population’s vulnerability is that they experience a heightened level of stigma. Patients with SUD are often limited in access to treatment, and even experience stigma in healthcare settings, which further hinders utilizing care. The language used around individuals with substance use plays a role in stigma, with a preference to use “person with a SUD” over the term “addicts” (Ashford et al., 2019). One strength associated with the health-related lifestyle of people living with SUD is the chance for recovery. Empowering people with SUD to live a substance-free lifestyle to improve their quality of life would be the ultimate goal of my community-based research project. Other ways for improving health and quality of life include the reduction of risk by providing safe needle disposal, distributing sterile needles, or providing training on the use of Narcan. Harm reduction opportunities would be a great asset for this population as they have traditionally been excluded from healthcare systems (Krawczyk et al., 2022). If I were to implement a community-based participatory research project with the SUD population, I would listen to the participant’s expressed health beliefs. I would anticipate an opportunity for improved quality of life in the areas of safe needle exchanges and Narcan training in the community. Community-based participatory research allows participants to be active in the research process as co-researchers. This is beneficial as it does not use strict, controlled environments, instead utilizing real-life approaches allows for practical accommodations to be made in research and the community (Racine et al., 2022). Community-based research provides a team approach that promotes vulnerable populations to feel empowered in their care. Working together as a community of vulnerable persons builds strength and brings power to the participants involved. Participants can contribute their own knowledge of experiences to help facilitate the continuous research process.
Ashford, R. D., Brown, A. M., Ashford, A., & Curtis, B. (2019). Recovery dialects: A pilot study of stigmatizing and nonstigmatizing label use by individuals in recovery from substance use disorders. Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology, 27(6), 530–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/pha0000286.supp
Krawczyk, N., Allen, S. T., Schneider, K. E., Solomon, K., Shah, H., Morris, M., Harris, S. J., Sherman, S. G., & Saloner, B. (2022). Intersecting substance use treatment and harm reduction services: exploring the characteristics and service needs of a community-based sample of people who use drugs. Harm Reduction Journal, 19(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00676-8
Racine, N., Madigan, S., Cardinal, S., Hartwick, C., Leslie, M., Motz, M., & Pepler, D. (2022). Community-based research: Perspectives of psychology researchers and community partners. Canadian Psychology / Psychologie Canadienne, 63(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/cap0000318
