The Inappropriate Use of Risk-Benefit Analysis in the Risk Assessment of Experimental Trauma-Focused Research

ABSTRACT

A large body of research has explored the impact of questioning participants about traumatic experiences. To determine the level of risk, these studies have relied, to various degrees, upon a risk-benefit calculus, whereby risks are weighed against the benefits that an individual can receive from participating. In the case of trauma-focused studies this approach is erroneous. The procedures involved in trauma-focused studies do not meet the criteria to be considered therapeutic, and the benefits associated with these procedures do not carry the moral weight to offset risk. Applying the risk-benefit calculus to non-therapeutic procedures inevitably leads to inaccurate risk assessments and ethically problematic claims, examples of which can be found throughout traumatic stress literature. This article outlines how the standard approach to risk assessment in trauma-focused studies is fallacious, and presents an established alternative model that researchers can use to accurately assess the risks of asking participants about their traumatic experiences.

KEYWORDS:

• Protection of research subjects
• research ethics
• risk assessment
• risk-benefit
• traumatic stress research

Acknowledgment

The author would like to thank Dr. Jonathan Kimmelman and Dr. Charles Weijer for their input on this article.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed on the publisher’s website.