The ethics of doing nothing. Suicide-bereavement and research: ethical and methodological considerations
Open accessAbstract
Background.: Valuable trauma-related research may be hindered when the risks of asking participants about traumatic events are not carefully weighed against the benefits of their participation in the research. Method.: The overall aim of our population-based survey was to improve the professional care of suicide-bereaved parents by identifying aspects of care that would be amenable to change. The study population included 666 suicide-bereaved and 377 matched (2:1) non-bereaved parents. In this article we describe the parents' perceptions of their contacts with us as well as their participation in the survey. We also present our ethical-protocol for epidemiological surveys in the aftermath of a traumatic loss. Results.: We were able to contact 1410 of the 1423 eligible parents; eight of these parents expressed resentment towards the contact. Several participants and non-participants described their psychological suffering and received help because of the contact. A total of 666 suicide-bereaved and 377 non-bereaved parents returned the questionnaire. Just two out of the 1043 answered that they might, in the long term, be negatively affected by participation in the study; one was bereaved, the other was not. A significant minority of the parents reported being temporarily negatively affected at the end of their participation, most of them referring to feelings of sadness and painful memories. In parallel, positive experiences were widely expressed and most parents found the study valuable. Conclusions.: Our findings suggest, given that the study design is ethically sound, that suicide-bereaved parents should be included in research since the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Does asking about suicide and related behaviours induce suicidal ideation? What is the evidence?
Dazzi, T., Gribble, R., Wessely, S., & Fear, N. T. (2014) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291714001299 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Blades, C. A., Stritzke, W. G. K., Page, A. C., & Brown, J. D. (2018) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2018.07.001 · Cited by 203 · see citing works
Spillane, A., Matvienko-Sikar, K., Larkin, C., Corcoran, P., & Arensman, E. (2018) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019472 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Nilsson, C., Blomberg, K., & Bremer, A. (2022) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being · doi:10.1080/17482631.2022.2122157 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Omerov, P., Steineck, G., Dyregrov, K., Runeson, B., & Nyberg, U.
- Affiliations
- Karolinska Institutet (SE)
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2013-07-19
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 16
- Pages
- 3409-3420
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- PMC
- PMC4255316
- OpenAlex
- W2061552367
- Cited by
- 66
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 1
- FWCI
- 6.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Forskningsrådet för Arbetsliv och Socialvetenskap
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics in Clinical Research
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Grief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Keywords
- suicide bereavement, research ethics, risk-benefit assessment, participant burden, bereavement support
- MeSH terms
- Bereavement, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Parents, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Suicide, Sweden, Ethics, Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review