Ethical issues in using the internet to engage participants in family and child research: A scoping review

Stacey Hokke; Naomi J Hackworth; Nina Quin; Shannon K Bennetts; Hnin Yee Win; Jan M Nicholson; Lawrie Zion; Jayne Lucke; Patrick Keyzer; Sharinne B Crawford

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0204572

Ethical issues in using the internet to engage participants in family and child research: A scoping review

PLoS One. 2018 Sep 27;13(9):e0204572. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204572. eCollection 2018.

Authors

Stacey Hokke¹, Naomi J Hackworth^{1

2

3}, Nina Quin¹, Shannon K Bennetts^{1

2}, Hnin Yee Win¹, Jan M Nicholson^{1

2

4}, Lawrie Zion⁵, Jayne Lucke^{6

7}, Patrick Keyzer⁸, Sharinne B Crawford¹

Affiliations

¹ Judith Lumley Centre, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
² Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
³ Parenting Research Centre, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁴ Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁵ Department of Communications and Media, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁶ Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
⁷ School of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
⁸ La Trobe Law School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.

Abstract

Background: The internet is an increasingly popular tool in family and child research that is argued to pose new ethical challenges, yet few studies have systematically assessed the ethical issues of engaging parents and children in research online. This scoping review aims to identify and integrate evidence on the ethical issues reported when recruiting, retaining and tracing families and children in research online, and to identify ethical guidelines for internet research.

Methods: Academic literature was searched using electronic academic databases (Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, ERIC, CINAHL and Informit) and handsearching reference lists for articles published in English between January 2006 and February 2016. Grey literature was searched using Google to identify relevant ethical guidelines.

Results: Sixty-five academic articles were included after screening 3,537 titles and abstracts and 205 full-text articles. Most articles reported using the internet to recruit participants (88%) with few reporting online retention (12%) or tracing (10%). Forty percent commented on ethical issues; the majority did not discuss ethics beyond general consent or approval procedures. Some ethical concerns were specific to engaging minors online, including parental consent, age verification and children's vulnerability. Other concerns applied when engaging any research participant online, including privacy and confidentiality, informed consent and disparities in internet access. Five professional guidelines and 10 university guidelines on internet research ethics were identified. Few academic articles (5%) reported using these guidelines.

Conclusions: Engaging families and children in research online introduces unique challenges requiring careful consideration. While researchers regarded themselves as responsible for ensuring research is conducted ethically, lack of use of available guidelines and limited academic literature suggests internet research is occurring without suitable guidance. We recommend broad dissemination of ethical guidelines and encourage researchers to report the methodological and ethical issues of using the internet to engage families and children in research.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Review

MeSH terms

Adult
Child
Confidentiality / ethics
Ethics, Research*
Family*
Female
Guidelines as Topic
Humans
Informed Consent / ethics
Internet / ethics*
Male
Parent-Child Relations*
Patient Selection / ethics
Research Design
Research Subjects

Grants and funding

This work was funded by La Trobe University through the Transforming Human Societies Research Focus Area Scheme 1, 2015; Associate Pro Vice Chancellor (Research), College of Science, Health & Engineering; and Pro Vice Chancellor (Research). Authors SH, NJH, NQ, SKB, JMN and SBC were supported by the Roberta Holmes Transition to Contemporary Parenthood Program (Australian Communities Foundation, Coronella sub-fund). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.