IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v367y2025ics0277953625000802.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Ethical issues in conducting health research with people in prison: Results of a deliberative research project conducted with people in Australian prisons

Author

Listed:
  • Simpson, Paul Leslie
  • Guthrie, Jill
  • Jones, Jocelyn
  • Haire, Bridget
  • Butler, Tony

Abstract

Planning research involving people in prison raises concerns based on past abuses of incarcerated people amongst other factors. Despite the development of guidelines for the ethical conduct of research in prisons, researchers and advocates have questioned whether current approaches aimed at protecting incarcerated persons from unethical research unfairly exclude this group from participating in and benefitting from research. Discussion of these issues comes mostly from expert opinion. An absent voice is that of people in prison. This study identifies the key ethical issues according to people in prison for health research involving people in prison. Using a deliberative approach, citizens' juries were conducted in six Australian prisons (three men's and three women's) between January and May 2019. A total of fifty participants were selected following an expression of interest process. Pre-recorded information by experts was shown to participants who subsequently deliberated for almost 4 h before collectively agreeing on key ethical issues. Reoccurring issues selected were: 1. Participants receive study results; 2. Involve individuals with lived experience in assessing what research should happen in prison; 3. Ensure access to research opportunities is equal to those in the community; 4. Address recruitment bias by preventing custodial staff selection of participants; 5. Protect the confidentiality of participant responses; 6. Recognize the capacity of people in prison to give informed consent; and 7. Prevent conflicts of interest that could result in research findings censorship by prison authorities. Focal points within identified issues are described and suggest that if we are to genuinely consider the voices of people in prison, then it may be time to incorporate ways for research participation to be more accessible to incarcerated citizens.

Suggested Citation

  • Simpson, Paul Leslie & Guthrie, Jill & Jones, Jocelyn & Haire, Bridget & Butler, Tony, 2025. "Ethical issues in conducting health research with people in prison: Results of a deliberative research project conducted with people in Australian prisons," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 367(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:367:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625000802
    DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953625000802
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.117751?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pratt, Bridget & Merritt, Maria & Hyder, Adnan A., 2016. "Towards deep inclusion for equity-oriented health research priority-setting: A working model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 215-224.
    2. repec:plo:pmed00:0050091 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei, 2022. "Integrating Citizens Juries and Discrete Choice Experiments: Methodological issues in the measurement of public values in healthcare priority setting," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 309(C).
    4. Degeling, Chris & Rychetnik, Lucie & Street, Jackie & Thomas, Rae & Carter, Stacy M., 2017. "Influencing health policy through public deliberation: Lessons learned from two decades of Citizens'/community juries," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 179(C), pages 166-171.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    2. Llopis, Oscar & D'Este, Pablo & McKelvey, Maureen & Yegros, Alfredo, 2022. "Navigating multiple logics: Legitimacy and the quest for societal impact in science," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    3. Jane Wardani & Joannette J. (Annette) Bos & Diego Ramirez‐Lovering & Anthony G. Capon, 2022. "Enabling transdisciplinary research collaboration for planetary health: Insights from practice at the environment‐health‐development nexus," Sustainable Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(2), pages 375-392, April.
    4. repec:plo:pone00:0218770 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Haynes, Emma & Marawili, Minitja & Marika, Brendan Makungun & Mitchell, Alice G. & Phillips, Jodi & Bessarab, Dawn & Walker, Roz & Cook, Jeff & Ralph, Anna P., 2019. "Community-based participatory action research on rheumatic heart disease in an Australian Aboriginal homeland: Evaluation of the ‘On track watch’ project," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 38-53.
    6. Elizabeth Manafò & Lisa Petermann & Virginia Vandall-Walker & Ping Mason-Lai, 2018. "Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(3), pages 1-18, March.
    7. Schoon, Rebecca & Chi, Chunhuei & Liu, Tsai-Ching, 2022. "Quantifying public preferences for healthcare priorities in Taiwan through an integrated citizens jury and discrete choice experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 315(C).

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:367:y:2025:i:c:s0277953625000802. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.