Why do people participate in epidemiological research?

Many assumptions are made about public willingness to participate in epidemiological research, yet few empirical studies have been conducted to ascertain whether such assumptions are correct. Our qualitative study of the public and of expert stakeholders leads us to suggest that people are generally prepared to participate in epidemiological research, particularly if it is conducted by a trusted public institution such as a government health department, charity, or university. However, there is widespread community distrust of research conducted or sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Individuals are prompted to take part if the study concerns an illness they or a family member or friend have personally experienced or if they believe the research will confer a widespread public benefit. Preferences vary about the mode of contact for the research to be conducted. Willingness to participate in telephone surveys has decreased in recent years, and this may be a consequence of an increase in calls to homes by telemarketers and market researchers. Participants also stressed the importance of knowing where their names and contact details were sourced and suggested that this information be available to prospective study participants as a matter of course in the first approach or letter. We provide valuable information to epidemiologists in designing studies.

A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees.

Study explanatory forms often state that an ethics committee has approved a research project. To determine whether the lay community understand the roles of ethics committees in research, we took a cross-sectional national sample from three sampling frames: the general population (n=1532); cohort study participants (n=397); and case-control study participants (n=151). About half (51.3%) of the participants had heard of ethics committees. Those who had were more likely to be those who had participated in previous surveys, older participants, those born in Australia and those with higher education. Almost all participants agreed that the roles of an ethics committee were to protect participants' privacy and ensure no harm came to study participants and most agreed that the committee's role was to ensure that the research was capable of providing answers. Case-control and cohort participants were more likely than the general population to consider that the role of an ethics committee was to design the research and obtain research funding. Overall, we found that about half of the population are aware of ethics committees and that most could correctly identify that ethics committees are there to protect the welfare and rights of research participants, although a substantial minority had some incorrect beliefs about the committees' roles. Increased education, particularly for migrants and older people, might improve understanding of the role of ethics committees in research.

Access to the Commonwealth electoral roll for medical research.

In the 2010-11 financial 2013, there was a dramatic reduction in the approvals granted by the Australian Electoral Commission for access to samples of the adult population derived from the electoral roll for the purposes of public health research. Much time and effort has been expended in making applications without success. Researchers refused access to electoral roll samples must rely on sampling methods that are not as robust and that may produce less reliable data. We outline a set of recommendations that, if adopted, will result in a fairer system for obtaining access to the electoral roll for public health research.