A perspective on enhancing representative samples in developmental human neuroscience: Connecting science to society

Green, Kayla H.; Groep, Ilse H. van de; Brinke, Lysanne W. te; Cruijsen, Renske van der; Rossenberg, Fabienne van; Marroun, Hanan El

doi:10.3389/fnint.2022.981657

Cited by 23 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moving the needle in human neurosciences will need intentional and collaborative effort to effectively avoid epistemic injustices, apply a SDoH lens, and address counterfactuals and confounding variables as they arise in our own neuroscience research ( Carter et al, 2022 ). Along with these two key tenets of health equity and the growing literature ( Carter et al, 2022 ; Girolamo et al, 2022 ; Green et al, 2022 ; Ricard et al, 2022 ; Webb et al, 2022 ) that call to expand our understanding of how larger contextualizing structural factors drive persistent brain health inequities, human neuroscience has the potential to move the needle toward authentic justice, equity, diversity, and inclusion, while also accelerating our pursuit to study the human brain.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A call to leverage a health equity lens to accelerate human neuroscience research

Rebello

Uban

2023

Front. Integr. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigation of health inequities tend to be examined, in human neurosciences, as biological factors at the level of the individual. In actuality, health inequities arise, due largely in part, to deep-seated structural factors. Structural inequality refers to the systemic disadvantage of one social group compared to others with whom they coexist. The term encompasses policy, law, governance, and culture and relates to race, ethnicity, gender or gender identity, class, sexual orientation, and other domains. These structural inequalities include but are not limited to social segregation, the intergenerational effects of colonialism and the consequent distribution of power and privilege. Principles to address inequities influenced by structural factors are increasingly prevalent in a subfield of the neurosciences, i.e., cultural neurosciences. Cultural neuroscience articulates the bidirectional relationship between biology and environmental contextual factors surrounding research participants. However, the operationalization of these principles may not have the intended spillover effect on the majority of human neurosciences: this limitation is the overarching focus of the present piece. Here, we provide our perspective that these principles are missing and very much needed in all human neuroscience subdisciplines to accelerate our understanding of the human brain. Furthermore, we provide an outline of two key tenets of a health equity lens necessary for achieving research equity in human neurosciences: the social determinants of health (SDoH) framework and how to deal with confounders using counterfactual thinking. We argue that these tenets should be prioritized across future human neuroscience research more generally, and doing so is a pathway to further gain an understanding of contextual background intertwined with the human brain, thus improving the rigor and inclusivity of human neuroscience research.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A call to leverage a health equity lens to accelerate human neuroscience research

Rebello

Uban

2023

Front. Integr. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, merely informing parents via digital channels might not suffice for obtaining understood consent (Isles, 2013). Notwithstanding the limited success of incorporating multimedia within the consent procedure assessed two decades ago (Flory & Emanuel, 2004), we believe that short videos can help to convey the information better and are more inclusive than their printed counterparts (Green et al, 2022). This could lead to higher response rates in active consent procedures and more confidence that the parent has received and understood the information in passive consent procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parents’ Perceptions of Parental Consent Procedures for Social Science Research in the School Context

Woudenberg¹,

Rozendaal²,

Buijzen³

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Institutional review boards typically require researchers to use active parental consent procedures when studying children and adolescents. However, asking for active consent leads to smaller and more biased samples, and a larger total burden for parents. Therefore, asking for passive parental consent might be preferable, but this comes with uncertainty regarding whether the parent has received and understood the information. Choosing between active and passive consent has mainly been debated by academics, but parents are also important stakeholders and it is unclear how consent procedures fit the needs and preferences of the parents of prospective participants. In this study, we used an online survey in which parents (N = 156, based on resource constraints and Bayesian updating (with a Bayes factor > 3) were exposed to video vignettes of multiple types of research in the classroom and were asked to indicate how they rate active and passive parental consent in terms of appropriateness. We used a reversed inferior hypothesis to test whether active consent was not rated as more appropriate than passive consent. The results indicated that parents perceived active consent procedures as more appropriate in most types of research. However, passive consent was rated comparably appropriate for some types of research, particularly for secondary school children. Furthermore, we explored factors that could affect the perceptions of parents and considered other aspects of providing consent that we displayed in an online dashboard. We concluded by providing recommendations for when and how to use active or passive parental consent for communication science research in the school context.

show abstract

“…There were at least four such papers published in 2022 alone! (Draper et al, 2022;Green et al, 2022;Lin & Ni, 2022;Moriguchi, 2022). I think at this point we have a pretty good sense of the problem.…”

Section: Myth #1: Diversity and Open Science Are In Conflictmentioning

confidence: 94%

Three Myths about Open Science That Just Won’t Die

Syed¹

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Knowledge and implementation of open science principles and behaviors remains uneven between and within sub-disciplines in psychology, despite over 10 years of education and advocacy. One reason for the slow and uneven progress of the movement is a set of closely-held myths about the implications of open science practices, exacerbated by the relative isolation of various sub-disciplines in the field. This talk will cover three of the major recurring myths: that open science is in conflict with prioritizing diversity, that “open data” is a binary choice between fully open and accessible and completely closed off, and that preregistration and registered reports are only appropriate for certain types of research designs. Putting these myths to rest is necessary as we work towards improving our scientific practice.

show abstract

A perspective on enhancing representative samples in developmental human neuroscience: Connecting science to society

Cited by 23 publications

References 45 publications

A call to leverage a health equity lens to accelerate human neuroscience research

A call to leverage a health equity lens to accelerate human neuroscience research

Parents’ Perceptions of Parental Consent Procedures for Social Science Research in the School Context

Three Myths about Open Science That Just Won’t Die

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About