Effect of information provision on trauma symptoms following therapeutic writing

Recent studies in the area of psychological debriefing (PD) have reported adverse effects. This study examined one possible explanation for such effects, that of sensitisation to the possibility of pathology. Subjects were 161 psychology students (female, n = 121; male, n = 40) who had experienced trauma but received no previous treatment. Subjects either received an explanation (explanation group) or received no explanation at all (no explanation group) about trauma reactions prior to undertaking a therapeutic writing protocol. The hypothesis of increased morbidity where the possibility of pathology was made explicit was not supported. At 2 months, the explanation group had a greater reduction on Impact of Events Scale Revised JES-R) total scores, F(1, 151) = 3.98, p = .048, and on the General Health Questionnaire - 28 (GHQ-28) Anxiety and Insomnia subscale, F(1, 151) = 9.84, p = .002, and total score F(1, 150) 5.05, p = .026. High-avoidance copers in particular appeared to benefit from information provision, F(1, 148) = 4.2 6, p = .044. Results suggest that adverse findings associated with PD may not be due to information sensitising of participants to pathology and that the provision of information to trauma survivors appears to be a useful strategy. Recommendations were made regarding the management of those exposed to trauma and for future research.

The ethics of paying drug users who participate in research: a review and practical recommendations

THE PAYMENT OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS raises ethical and empirical questions that have special importance in addictions research involving drug-dependent participants. Despite a now large literature on human subjects payment, what is still needed is practical guidance for investigators and ethics committees. This paper reviews the literature on: current payment practices and guidelines; defining features of undue and due incentives and fair reimbursement; and the significance of risks and harms that may arise from paying drug using participants. We conclude that research payments are ethically acceptable in most circumstances of addictions research, but should be closely scrutinized in situations where these may exacerbate existing harms or create additional risks for participants and investigators. General principles, key questions and procedural options are highlighted for an applied approach to ethical research payments. Future research directions are identified.