<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><xml><records><record><source-app name="Biblio" version="6.x">Drupal-Biblio</source-app><rec-number>7063</rec-number><ref-type>Journal Article</ref-type><contributors><authors><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Widom, Cathy Spatz</style></author><author><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Czaja, Sally J.</style></author></authors></contributors><titles><title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reactions to Research Participation in Vulnerable Subgroups</style></title><secondary-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Accountability in Research: Policies &amp; Quality Assurance</style></secondary-title><short-title><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Reactions to Research Participation in Vulnerable Subgroups</style></short-title></titles><keywords><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">BIOETHICS</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">HEALTH</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human Research Subjects</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">MEDICINE</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Methodology</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Moral</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PSYCHIATRY</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">PSYCHOLOGY</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">research</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">SCIENCE</style></keyword><keyword><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vulnerable Populations</style></keyword></keywords><taxonomies><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Vulnerable Populations</style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Human Research Subjects</style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Science </style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Psychology</style></taxonomy><taxonomy><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Medicine</style></taxonomy></taxonomies><pubtype><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Journal Article</style></pubtype><audience-level><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">ug</style></audience-level><dates><year><style  face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2005</style></year></dates><volume><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">12</style></volume><pages><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">115-138</style></pages><issn><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">08989621</style></issn><language><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">eng</style></language><abstract><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">This paper describes the extent to which vulnerable individuals (defined by economic, social, psychological, physical health, and child maltreatment status) react to research participation. As part of an ongoing longitudinal study, participants (N = 896) completed a lengthy and intrusive in-person interview and provided a small amount of blood through finger pricks. At the end of the interview, participants were asked eight questions about their reactions to the research experience. Vulnerable individuals in general agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction, but were not less willing to continue to participate. In addition, psychologically vulnerable individuals more strongly agreed they would continue to participate, were treated with respect and dignity, and found their participation meaningful. Compared to whites, nonwhites reported stronger agreement about the meaningfulness of the research and the belief that their responses would be kept private. Like others, individuals vulnerable by virtue of their prisoner status or homelessness (past or current) agreed more strongly about having an emotional reaction to the interview, but otherwise did not differ in their reactions. These results suggest that researchers and institutional review boards should not be deterred from conducting research on sensitive topics with potentially vulnerable populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]Copyright of Accountability in Research: Policies &amp; Quality Assurance is the property of Taylor &amp; Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)</style></abstract><doi><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">10.1080/08989620590957193</style></doi><issue><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">2</style></issue><work-type><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Article</style></work-type><accession-num><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">17523065</style></accession-num><notes><style face="normal" font="default" size="100%">Widom, Cathy Spatz 1; Email Address: widomca@umdnj.edu; Czaja, Sally J. 1; Affiliations: 1: Department of Psychiatry, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ; Issue Info: Apr2005, Vol. 12 Issue 2, p115; Thesaurus Term: RESEARCH; Subject Term: METHODOLOGY; Subject Term: MORAL &amp; ethical aspects; Subject Term: BIOETHICS; Subject Term: PSYCHOLOGY; Subject Term: PSYCHIATRY; Subject Term: HEALTH; Number of Pages: 24p; Document Type: Article</style></notes></record></records></xml>