Citation

Taylor HA, Merritt MW. Dev. World Bioeth. 2012; 12(3): 157-163.

Affiliation

Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (JHSPH) and Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2012, John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00333.x

PMID

22713090

Abstract

Background:  This article describes the types of community-wide benefits provided by investigators conducting public health research in South Asia as well as their self-reported reasons for providing such benefits. Methods:  We conducted 52 in-depth interviews to explore how public health investigators in low-resource settings make decisions about the delivery of ancillary care to research subjects. In 39 of the interviews respondents described providing benefits to members of the community in which they conducted their study. We returned to our narrative dataset to find answers to two questions: What types of community-wide benefits do researchers provide when conducting public health intervention studies in the community setting, and what reasons do researchers give when asked why they provided community-wide benefits? Findings:  The types of community-wide benefits delivered were directed to the health and well-being of the population. The most common types of benefits delivered were the facilitation of access to health care for individuals in acute medical need and emergency response to natural disasters. Respondents' self-reported reasons when asked why they provided such benefits fell into 2 general categories: intrinsic importance and instrumental importance.

Language: en