Prevention Ethics: Explicating the Context of Prevention Activities

Abstract

Research and intervention involving primary prevention [related to mental health and psychology] have grown dramatically in the past 10 years. However, little attention has been paid to ethical issues in primary prevention. This article proposes a framework for increasing awareness of such issues. The framework centers on explicating the contexts where prevention activities occur and the roles adopted by interventionists engaging in these activities. Several assumptions underlying primary prevention are stated, and ways of clarifying ethical issues are proposed.

Best Practice Guidelines on Prevention Practice, Research, Training, and Social Advocacy for Psychologists

“…Prevention programs affect multiple individuals and contexts. Prevention practitioners may design and evaluate programs by using criteria from their own communities' cultural perspectives and worldviews (Shinke et al, 1988;Trickett, 1992Trickett, , 1998Trickett & Levin, 1990). Cultural encapsulation (Wrenn, 1962) in research may miss important contextual factors that contribute to the success or failure of preventive interventions within specific communities and cultures (Turner, 2000).…”

“…Community investment through involvement of major stakeholders in prevention program research is a dynamic approach to ensuring that prevention research is culturally relevant (Caplan & Caplan, 2000;Conyne, 2004;Nation et al, 2003;Reiss & Price, 1996). This ecological perspective examines the power dynamics between the prevention researcher and the community and facilitates safeguarding clients' autonomy (Trickett, 1992). A community collaborative action research model is an example of an approach in which programs are developed to meet the community's specific needs (Weissberg & Greenberg, 1998).…”

Rejecting the Null: Research and Social Justice Means Asking Different Questions

“…In contrast, social justice researchers (e.g., those involved in participatory action research; Reid, 2004) recognize that even well‐intentioned researchers from dominant social and cultural groups cannot help but struggle in recognizing the oppressive features of their own cultural beliefs and practices, and that value‐free research is impossible to achieve (Morrow et al, 2001; Trickett, 1992). Instead, social justice researchers argue that truly objective research is a misguided goal, whereas socially engaged research (i.e., research with a bias toward ending human suffering) is more effective in producing knowledge that contributes toward the advancement of social justice agendas (Harding & Norberg, 2005).…”

Prevention: Ethics, responsibility, and commitment to public well-being.

“…Although some approaches to prevention use a traditional therapeutic modality, such as functional family therapy (Sexton & Alexander, 2000) and multisystemic therapy (Henggeler, Melton, & Smith, 1992), a significant number of prevention programs aim at primary prevention (i.e., stopping problems before they occur in a community or population). Additionally, the success of prevention programs is inextricably linked to the context of the target population (Trickett, 1992(Trickett, , 1998. Unlike traditional therapy, research suggests that successful prevention interventions must address multiple systems (Conyne, 2004;Durlak, 2003;Hage et al, 2007).…”

“…Typically the target population is a group that is not actively seeking help (Conyne, 2004). The imposed nature of the intervention has the potential of exacerbating the typical power imbalance between a practitioner or researcher and participants, as the prevention practitioner is viewed as acting with expertise and authority to address a problem (Danish, 1990;Trickett, 1992Trickett, , 1998. As the power differential increases, the ability of the participants to make autonomous decisions telated to informed consent decreases.…”