Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Research with Human Subjects:
Published in Lynne M. Bianchi, Research during Medical Residency, 2022
Lynne M. Bianchi, Joyce Babyak, Robert Maholic
Training is also important for you to recognize and appreciate the differences between experimental practice and experimental research. Experimental medical research involves groups of patients receiving defined interventions. However, trying different interventions during routine care of a single patient is not considered research. Be sure you know the differences between practice, experimentation, and research (Box 8.2).
Introduction and Brief History of Structural Equation Modeling for Health and Medical Research
Published in Douglas D. Gunzler, Adam T. Perzynski, Adam C. Carle, Structural Equation Modeling for Health and Medicine, 2021
Douglas D. Gunzler, Adam T. Perzynski, Adam C. Carle
Under ideal circumstances, experimental research might allow a researcher to draw cause and effect conclusions. Based on our prior example for experimental research, given strong background knowledge and study results, we might be comfortable stating that these sodium chloride tablets lead to higher levels of sodium in the population under study.
Data-gathering and sampling
Published in John A. Bilorusky, Principles and Methods of Transformative Action Research, 2021
By contrast, usually, people think of getting a “random sample,” which is really based on one, very particular type of research, experimental research. With experimental research, the researcher chooses a group of people (e.g., willing college students), called the “subjects,” and then decides to do an experiment on one subgroup and no experiment or intervention on the other group, called the “control group.” The idea is to randomly assign some subjects to the experimental group, and some to the control group. The logic is that one wants the two groups to be “comparable,” and it is believed that will be accomplished by randomly selecting the two groups, by what amounts to “drawing out of a hat” to see who will be put in which group. It does indeed accomplish that goal fairly well.
Psychedelic Microdosing, Mindfulness, and Anxiety: A Cross-Sectional Mediation Study
Published in Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 2023
Vincent Hartong, Arnold van Emmerik
An alternative explanation of our findings that should be considered is the possible presence of a placebo effect in the reported outcomes of microdosing. Szigeti et al. (2021) and Marschall et al. (2021) found no differences in anxiety between microdosing and placebo groups. In addition, Kaertner et al. (2021) found that positive expectancy scores regarding the effects of microdosing at baseline predicted subsequent improvements in well-being. Furthermore, in a self-reported observational study, Politio and Stevenson (2019) found evidence for an expectancy bias in naïve and experienced microdosers. While these findings suggest the possible presence of a placebo effect, this notion is undermined by the fact that Politio and Stevenson (2019) found no association between expected and observed effects of microdosing. More placebo-controlled experimental research is needed to test causal hypotheses concerning the effects of microdosing.
Effect of teach-back method on breastfeeding success: A single blind randomized controlled study
Published in Health Care for Women International, 2023
Arzu Kul Uçtu, Nebahat Özerdoğan
This study, which has a randomized controlled experimental research design. The sample of the study was divided into two groups by randomization. Breastfeeding success levels were compared by providing breastfeeding education and counseling service based on the teach-back method to one group of mothers (intervention group), and standard breastfeeding education and counseling service to another group (control group). Opinions were received from five academicians working in the field of Midwifery, Obstetrics and Gynecology Nursing, who have researches on breastfeeding. Recommendations from the CONSORT group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) were followed in this study. This study is registered in The ClinicalTrials.gov Protocol Registration and Results System (PRS) ID: NCT04808726.
Trust in research physicians as a key dimension of randomized controlled trial participation in clinical addictions research
Published in Substance Abuse, 2021
Kaitlyn Jaffe, Ekaterina Nosova, Kora DeBeck, Kanna Hayashi, M.-J. Milloy, Lindsey Richardson
However, investigators may be able to alleviate some barriers to participation and build participants’ trust in medical researchers. Previous work demonstrates researchers who stay engaged with participants throughout the study can successfully allay participant concerns about trial medications or help them overcome barriers to attending study follow-ups, in turn boosting retention and protocol adherence.10 Prior to commencing the trial, researchers might consult with community groups, involve PWUD in trial design and governance, provide accessible study information, and communicate with addiction treatment and social services staff.10,15,16 During trial communications, research staff can approach discussions from a nonjudgmental and harm reduction-oriented standpoint, which may help counteract previous negative experiences in healthcare settings.18 During the trial, researchers can continue to remind participants about the purpose and practice of experimental research and repeatedly and clearly explain the study objectives, which may reduce suspicions around researchers’ intentions. As the trial concludes, research physicians should ensure no harm comes to participants through the discontinuation of medications or through inadequate transition plans when ceasing experimental procedures.32 PWUD have also suggested ways researchers can assist in alleviating structural barriers to wellbeing that participants face (e.g., housing, legal, employment),15 potentially through partnering with social services.