Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: How distressing is it to participate in medical research? A calibration study using an everyday events questionnaire
Author(s): Petrie, Keith
Faasse, Kate
Notman, Tracy
O'Carroll, Ronan
Contact Email:
Issue Date: Oct-2013
Date Deposited: 8-Nov-2013
Citation: Petrie K, Faasse K, Notman T & O'Carroll R (2013) How distressing is it to participate in medical research? A calibration study using an everyday events questionnaire. JRSM Short Reports, 4 (10), Art. No.: 2042533313493271.
Abstract: Objectives: To investigate how distressing participating in medical research is perceived to be, compared to everyday events. Design: Anonymous questionnaire. Setting: Scotland and New Zealand. Participants: One hundred members of the Scottish general public, 94 University of Auckland students, 22 New Zealand Ministry of Health ethics committee members. Main outcome measures: Distress ratings made on a 0-10 scale for everyday events and common medical research procedures. Results: Both general population and student samples generally rated the distress caused by participating in various medical research procedures as low or very low. Most research procedures were rated less than the distress caused by not being able to find a car park at a supermarket. In contrast, the ethics committee members rated the distress caused by most of the medical research procedures at a significantly higher level than the ratings of the student and general population samples. Ethics committee members overestimated the distress caused by interview or questionnaire assessments (M = 203.31%, SE = 11.42, 95% CI [179.79, 226.83]) more than medical testing for research (M = 158.06%, SE = 12.33, 95% CI [132.66, 183.46], p = 0.04) and everyday events (M = 133.10%, SE = 7.80, 95% CI [117.03, 149.16], p < 0.001). Conclusions: Common medical research procedures are not rated as particularly distressing by the general public, and ethics committees may be adopting an over-protective role when evaluating research applications that involve the use of questionnaire or survey methodology.
DOI Link: 10.1177/2042533313493271
Rights: This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Non-commercial Attribution License (, which permits non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Licence URL(s):

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
JRSM Short Reports 2013 Petrie.pdfFulltext - Published Version715.3 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.