![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.png)
Research in OH ultimately seeks to improve the quality of OH delivery. However, researchers must be aware that their research could have unintended consequences if the results could, for example, affect the perceived employability of more vulnerable workers or potential workers. The question this paper seeks to address is whether OH researchers also have a moral duty to consider the wider implications of their research beyond the study participants, for example, whether it might have a negative impact on disadvantaged groups in society.
Methods
2 case studies drawn from actual OH research, both in the psychosocial field, are presented.
Both cases are subjected to ethical analysis, using recognized approaches including principalism and consequentialist theories.
Results
Case study 1 was a study which sought to identify genetic predisposition to stress in a group of workers , by seeking a relationship between the results of a genetic test and the responses to questionnaires assessing stress and job performance.
In case study 2, an MSc student presented a study proposal to a university research ethics committee (REC). The study would involve retrospective collection of sickness absence data in an organization, and compare those who had declared mental health conditions at the pre-employment assessment stage, with those who had not. The hypothesis to be tested was that those who had mental health problems would also need more time off work subsequently.
Both cases are subjected to ethical analysis.
Discussion
Both these cases illustrate the problems that can arise out of psychosocial work-based research, in that the results of such research could place those who suffer, or have suffered, or have an increased vulnerability to, mental health problems, at further disadvantage in the labor market. However, if ethical issues are thought through at an early stage by researchers, and members of RECs, then these risks can be minimized.