Search

This paper discusses the lasting impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on research ethics in social sciences by focusing on the concept of vulnerability. We unpack the current conceptualisations of vulnerability and their limitations and argue for the need to reconceptualise vulnerability as multidimensional, consisting of both universal and contextual dimensions, as well as their dynamic interplay. Multidimensional vulnerability is inspired by and relevant to social science research during the pandemic but can also be useful in other contexts such as climate change or conflict. The paper puts forwards several considerations about how this revised concept of vulnerability may be useful when evaluating ethical dimensions of social science research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present the results of a scoping review in which we examined the scientific literature (2010–2021) on faith-based organizations (FBOs) working within the field of poverty alleviation, focusing on the way studies define and use the term FBO. Fifty-two relevant studies were identified and included. Our research shows that the term FBOs is primarily used in American studies. Moreover, there is no broad consensus on the exact definition or meaning of the term nor on its scope. Because of this lack of consensus and the inherent shortcomings of the term, we suggest to replace the term FBO by the term "religion-based solidarity initiatives" (RSIs), We define RSIs as: "Initiatives that, from a religious inspiration, aim at organizing collective action for and/or providing support or services to people in vulnerable positions." These initiatives can range from small scale ad hoc initiatives till large scale formal organizations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The term 'care‐experienced' refers to anyone who is currently in care or has been in care at any stage in their life. A complex interplay of factors leads to care‐experienced children and young people (CECYP) experiencing poorer oral health and access to dental care than their peers. A rapid review of the co‐production of health and social care research with vulnerable children and young people (CYP) was carried out to inform the development of a co‐produced research project exploring the oral health behaviours and access to dental services of CECYP. Here, 'co‐production' refers to the involvement of CYP in the planning or conduct of research with explicit roles in which they generate ideas, evidence and research outputs. Aim: To learn how to meaningfully involve vulnerable CYP in the co‐production of health and social science research. Objectives: To identify: Different approaches to facilitating the engagement of vulnerable CYP in co‐production of health and social science research; different activities carried out in such approaches, challenges to engaging vulnerable CYP in co‐production of health and social science research and ways to overcome them and areas of best practice in relation to research co‐production with vulnerable CYP. Search Strategy: A rapid review of peer‐reviewed articles was conducted in six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, SocINDEX, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science) and grey literature to identify studies that engaged vulnerable CYP in co‐approaches to health and social research. Main Results: Of 1394 documents identified in the search, 40 were included and analysed. A number of different approaches to co‐production were used in the studies. The CYP was involved in a range of activities, chiefly the development of data collection tools, data collection and dissemination. Individual challenges for CYP and researchers, practical and institutional factors and ethical considerations impacted the success of co‐production. Discussion and Conclusion: Co‐production of health and social science with vulnerable CYP presents challenges to researchers and CYP calling for all to demonstrate reflexivity and awareness of biases, strengths and limitations. Used appropriately and well, co‐production offers benefits to researchers and CYP and can contribute to research that reflects the needs of vulnerable CYP. Adherence to the key principles of inclusion, safeguarding, respect and well‐being facilitates this approach. Patient and Public Contribution: Members of our patient and public involvement and stakeholder groups contributed to the interpretation of the review findings. This manuscript was written together with a young care leaver, Skye Boswell, who is one of the authors. She contributed to the preparation of the manuscript, reviewing the findings and their interpretation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]