DAMEC Research and Evaluation Framework...Page 5 of 29 This framework is a living document and...

of 29 This framework is a living document and should be reviewed and updated every year – v4 (5.2015)

DAMEC

Research and

Evaluation

Framework


Review history:

Stage Senior Research Officer Research Subcommittee Board of Directors Development and initial review stages

Safety protocols –

Sep 2010

Framework v1 – Aug

2011

Framework v2 – July

2012

Sep 2011

Nov 2011

Review at 24 months

Dec 2013 Added/revised: 2.1, 1.2 & 2.2 (National

Drug Strategy), 2.2.1, 2.3.8, 2.9, 3.1.2, 3.3 (cloud technologies

and online tools), 3.4, 4.1.3, 4.2 Appendix

Feb 2014 v3

Review at 36 months

March 2015 June 2015 v4

March 2016 June 2016

March 2017 June 2017


The Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre (DAMEC) 2011.

Suggested citation:

Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre (2011; 2015) DAMEC Research and Evaluation Framework 4th Edition. Sydney: Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre.

Enquiries about this publication should be directed to:

Senior Research Officer at the Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre PO Box 2315, STRAWBERRY HILLS NSW 2012 [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]


Contents

1. Introduction

1.1 Why a research and evaluation framework? ............................................................................................. 4

1.2 Using the framework ........................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3 DAMEC research and evaluation history .................................................................................................... 5

2. Delivering high quality research

2.1 Why conduct research with CALD populations? ……………………………………………………………..7

2.2 Values, principles and processes ................................................................................................................... 7

2.3 Roles & responsibilities ................................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Consumer participation .................................................................................................................................. 12

2.5 Guidelines for convening advisory groups .............................................................................................. 12

2.6 Intellectual property ......................................................................................................................................... 13

2.7 Review processes ............................................................................................................................................... 13

2.8 Dissemination of findings ............................................................................................................................... 14

2.9 Fostering evidence-based practice ............................................................................................................. 15

3. Ethical conduct

3.1 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval ....................................................................... 16

3.2 Privacy and confidentiality ............................................................................................................................ 18

3.3 Data storage and handling ............................................................................................................................. 19

3.4 Participant reimbursement ........................................................................................................................... 20

3.5 Complaints handling procedures ................................................................................................................ 20

3.6 Research misconduct and disciplinary measures ................................................................................ 21

3.7 Conflicts of interest ........................................................................................................................................... 21

4. Mitigating associated risks

4.1 Safety protocols ................................................................................................................................................. 23

4.2 Legal issues ........................................................................................................................................................... 25

5. Appendix: Framework implementation checklist

6. References


1. Introduction

1.1 Why a research and evaluation framework?

The purpose of this framework is to support those involved in research and evaluation at

DAMEC to undertake their roles ethically, effectively and efficiently. This document’s aim is to

articulate the internal research and evaluation governance purpose, principles and procedures

by which research is conducted at the Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre

(DAMEC).

The objectives of the framework are to:

a) Support the delivery of high quality research and evaluation.

b) Promote the ethical conduct of all research and evaluation.

c) Mitigate the risks associated with the conduct of research and evaluation.

The document is structured according to these objectives. Section 2 outlines the mechanisms in

place to support the delivery of high quality research and evaluation. Section 3 details the

processes that promote the ethical conduct of all research and evaluation. Finally, section 4

outlines the protocols in place to promote researcher safety during field work.

DAMEC aims to constantly improve its research practices, and as such this document should be

reviewed annually to ensure that the most recent Federal and State Guidelines are being met.

1.2 Using the framework

This framework should be applied in conjunction with the:

a) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research developed by the National

Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and the Australian

Vice-Chancellor’s Committee (2007, last updated Nov 2014).

b) Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research jointly issued by the National

Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council and Universities

Australia (2007).

c) National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 issued by the Ministerial Council on Drug Strategy

(2011).

These documents are used by DAMEC to inform the design, conduct and dissemination of

research. By establishing protocols that apply to the effective, efficient and ethical conduct of

research at an organisational level, this Research and Evaluation Framework meets the

standards set out in the above documents.

Relevant organisation-wide documents that should be consulted in conjunction with this policy

document are: the current DAMEC Strategic Plan; DAMEC Policy and Procedures; Staff

Grievance Policy; research staff job descriptions; and, Staff Disciplinary Policy and Procedures.


1.3 DAMEC research and evaluation history

Since 1989 DAMEC has conducted research concerning alcohol and other drug (AOD) issues

amongst culturally and linguistically diverse communities in NSW. This research has included

collaboration and dissemination across a range of sectors, primarily the AOD and multicultural

sectors, and more recently mental health and social policy sectors. Given the unique nature of

DAMEC, while projects are NSW specific, research results have also had national significance.

DAMEC was first commissioned by NSW Health to conduct prevalence studies investigating

drug and alcohol use across CALD groups in Sydney. These were published between 1992 and

1997. In 1997, a full time research position was created funded by (then) NSW Health. Since

that time DAMEC has also received additional project funding from various government and

non-government sources to support larger research projects, including a repeat of the 1990s

prevalence studies.

In addition to the research outputs on figure 1 (page 6), researchers at DAMEC have been

involved in continuous quality improvement processes and have collaborated with health

promotion and other project work undertaken by the organisation. Researchers conduct

internal evaluations and support external evaluations, contribute to and identify evidence to

support DAMEC’s health promotion and community development projects, support DAMEC

accreditation processes, update website content, give presentations at conferences , publish

articles in AOD sector publications, and participate in external project advisory groups and

networks.


2014 Culturally responsive model of service (DAMEC Counselling Service Evaluation)

2012 Choosing the right mix: lessons on culturally relevant treatment from the evaluation of the Drug and Alcohol Multicultural Education Centre’s Counselling Service

2012 Vietnamese Transitions Project Evaluation Report 2011-2012

2010 Interim evaluation of DAMEC Counselling Service

2009 Evaluation of DAMEC amphetamine-type stimulant (ATS) project

2008 Developmental research for ATS project

Objective 1: Deliver culturally sensitive specialist AOD interventions for individuals and families from a CALD background.

2015 Patterns of Performance and Image Enhancing Drug use among men accessing Needle and Syringe Programs in NSW, Australia

2014 Young Pacific Islanders: Family, Identity and Alcohol

2013 Substance use issues and support needs: DAMEC research strategy consultation

2008 Prevalence of alcohol, tobacco and other drug use among the following six CALD communities in Sydney: Arabic-speaking; Chinese; Italian; Spanish-speaking; Pasifika; and Vietnamese

Objective 2: Understand the prevalence and

impact of AOD amongst CALD communities.

2015 Easy-to-understand English Guide to AOD treatment

2014 ‘Delay the Drop’ Process Evaluation

Objective 3: Build the capacity of CALD communities to understand and address AOD issues.

2013 Snapshot of current NSW AOD service standards and practices with CALD clients and carers

2010 Finding the right help: Pathways for culturally diverse clients with cannabis use and mental health issues

2009 Counting diversity: Indicators of cultural diversity used by drug and alcohol workers in Australia

2009 Tensions between purported aims of healthcare policy in Australia and the delivery of health care services

2009 Working with culturally diverse clients in drug and alcohol services

Objective 4: Enhance the accessibility of drug and alcohol services for people from CALD backgrounds.

Figure 1: DAMEC research & evaluation projects since 2008 by organisational objectives


2. Delivering high quality research

2.1 Why conduct research with CALD populations?

Research with CALD communities is necessary to recognise the diversity within CALD

populations, to understand a range of unique needs and the particular barriers that CALD

communities face in Australian society. Overall, CALD populations have lower AOD treatment

access rates in NSW than the rest of the population, and yet research generally concurs that

some CALD groups are disproportionately represented in hospital admissions, tobacco smoking

rates, illicit drug crime and custodial sentencing figures. Where people from CALD backgrounds

do reach AOD services, many clients are met with treatment models that are provided in

inaccessible language and based in Western perceptions of drugs, family, community, medicine

and welfare. Research can support CALD communities, as well as policy-makers and health

services to understand and to address the broad social issues associated with substance use, as

well as to promote tangible, effective ways of providing AOD services to clients from diverse

cultural backgrounds.

DAMEC’s overarching objectives are to:

1. Deliver culturally sensitive specialist AOD interventions for individuals and families

from CALD backgrounds

2. Understand the prevalence and impact of AOD amongst CALD communities

3. Build the capacity of CALD communities to understand and address AOD issues

4. Enhance the accessibility of drug and alcohol services for people from CALD

backgrounds.

2.2 Values, principles and processes

DAMEC Research responds to one or more of the three pillars of harm minimization as outlined

in the National Drug Strategy 2010-2015: demand reduction, supply reduction and harm

reduction.

DAMEC upholds the core values of respect for diversity and everyone’s entitlement to cultural

practices and customs. Research at DAMEC seeks to take into account the values, practices and

principles of the culturally and linguistically diverse groups in contemporary Australian society.

In doing so, DAMEC recognises the importance of relationships, patience and time to the

conduct of ethical research that serves community needs.

DAMEC is accountable first and foremost to the participants in its research: to CALD

communities, to the AOD sector and multicultural organisations. DAMEC Research is also

accountable to the NSW Ministry of Health and other state and national funding bodies. In

conducting research (See Figure 2). Research strives to build partnerships across sectors,

particularly between AOD agencies, mental health agencies and multicultural/ethnic

organisations. Governance of DAMEC’s research activities seeks to include consumers of

DAMEC’s services.


In any research project there should be clear outcome measures that can be monitored and

reported. DAMEC commits to monitoring the conduct of research and evaluation internally,

through its Board of Directors and externally, through the Australian Council for Healthcare

Standards (ACHS). Finally, efforts are made to disseminate research outputs to the AOD

workforce in NSW and to report research findings in such a way as to contribute to the

development of an AOD workforce that is highly skilled and confident in working appropriately

with clients from CALD backgrounds.

2.2.1 Research involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples

It is not DAMEC’s mission to work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities

directly, however in all research and evaluation undertaken at DAMEC consideration is given to

the impacts upon or involvement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In DAMEC

research, this will almost always pertain to unintended impacts and incidental recruitment of

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Where potential impacts or involvement are

identified, DAMEC will consult with Aboriginal health agencies, AOD services, Land Councils

and/or seek advice through the Ministry of Health Aboriginal Health Liaison Officers.

Researchers will do this because DAMEC recognises the negative impacts of previous health

research upon Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities and seeks to ensure that no

DAMEC research repeats past wrongs. Furthermore, DAMEC recognises that Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islander communities have been disadvantaged by former and current

Commonwealth and State policies, and that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples have

the right to participate in any decisions that may affect them.


Figure 2: Research Process

Subcommittee

Proposal Development & Project Protocol

Research undertaking

Ethical Review

Processes

Site Specific Assessment

Advisory Group

Completion, Reporting and Dissemination

Internal

Presentations/

Workshops

Staff Email

DAMEC Website

External

Journal Submissions

E-lists

Conferences

Collaborating Agency Websites

Review by Subcommittee

Approval by Board of Directors

Research

Officer

Counselling Service

Supervisor

External consultation

Research

Ideas


2.3 Roles & responsibilities

2.3.1 Board of Directors

The Board must be informed of research proposals and activities. The Board is to ensure that all

evaluation, planning and research activities undertaken by or in partnership with DAMEC staff

conform to the service’s stated principles. All

funds awarded to DAMEC Research are

managed and handled by the Board of

Directors; this includes management of

specific research projects and grant funds.

2.3.2 Research Subcommittee

The purpose of the Research Subcommittee is

to advise on the overall functions of the

research unit at DAMEC. The specific aims of

the Research Subcommittee are to provide

advice and inform research projects,

submissions, dissemination and other support

as appropriate. This includes advice on project

relevance and appropriateness, information

management, data ownership, confidentiality

and accountability to communities.

The Terms of Reference for this Subcommittee

are as follows:

1. To advise on research program

direction and research agenda;

2. To advise on research design;

3. To advise on sensitive issues around

the discussion of drug use and mental

health disorders;

4. To explore and comment on the constructions of drug use and mental health amongst

CALD communities as well as in mainstream New South Wales, and how these

constructions may inform research processes;

5. To provide insight into the treatment experiences of people from CALD backgrounds;

6. To provide insight into the experiences of specialist service providers when treating the

target population;

7. To advise on building effective research partnerships and relationships as appropriate;

8. To provide other relevant advice and assistance.

2.3.3 Supervisory roles

Supervisors are the Senior Research Officer for research & evaluation projects and research

staff; and the CEO in respect to the Senior Research Officer. Research supervisors are

responsible for monitoring the conduct of specific research projects. Supervisors are to have

relevant research qualifications and professional experience. Supervisors are to liaise with

Figure 3: DAMEC Research organisational chart

Board of Directors

Chief Executive Officer

Senior Research Officer

Clinical staff

Project Officer

Student Research Placements

Research Officers/Assistants

Research Subcommittee

Advisory Groups

(as per project)


researchers through regular scheduled meetings or by ad hoc consultation as required.

Supervisors are responsible for ensuring that new research staff receive orientation to the

organisation. Part of a supervisor’s role is to orient researchers with this research framework

and the relevant codes of practice and standards.

2.3.4 Senior Research Officer

According to the changing priorities of the organisation and funding conditions, the

employment of a research staff is a standard policy priority. Minimum qualifications for this

position are a tertiary qualification in research or a related discipline.

The Senior Research Officer is responsible for the overall development and implementation of

DAMEC’s research and evaluation program, under the direction of the CEO and on advice from

the Research Subcommittee. This includes preparing the research plan and research agenda,

writing funding applications, developing research project plans and evaluation frameworks and

supervising research staff.

The Senior Research Officer is to promote professional development activities and training for

themselves and other researchers, subject to prior negotiation with the CEO. It is the Senior

Research Officer’s responsibility to foster active communication between research staff and

DAMEC clinicians regarding research developments across the AOD and CALD sectors. This is to

occur through staff reports; staff meetings and quarterly staff updates on new AOD-CALD

oriented research.

The Senior Research Officer is responsible for the supervision of any Research Officers,

Research Assistants or Student Research Placements, unless alternate arrangements are made

with the CEO. The Senior Research Officer may delegate responsibility for the supervision of

Research Assistants to a Research Officer.

2.3.5 Research Officers

Research Officers will be employed on a fixed term contract basis. Such employment is usually

project based. Where the position of Senior Research Officer is vacant, a Research Officer under

DAMEC’s employ will assume some of the responsibilities listed above, other responsibilities

will become those of the CEO. This will be negotiated according to skills, workload and

employment terms. Research Officers are responsible for the ethical conduct of research

activities and projects as outlined in project planning and in accordance with their supervisor.

2.3.6 Research Assistants

Research assistants are responsible for the ethical conduct of research activities they undertake

as directed by their supervisor. Research assistants are to receive appropriate training to

undertake their roles to standards of excellence and ethical rigor.

2.3.7 DAMEC Clinical Staff

Healthcare practitioners employed at DAMEC Counselling are required to participate in clinical

service evaluation. Researchers and evaluators, whether internal or external, are responsible

for providing guidelines to clinical staff regarding each particular project and conducting

awareness raising activities throughout the evaluation process. Clinical staff should receive


feedback about all outcomes of research and evaluation conducted by DAMEC Researchers or

about DAMEC, where conducted by external evaluators.

2.3.8 DAMEC Project Officers

DAMEC’s research strives to identify areas where interventions are most needed, and as such

Project Officers and Researchers will collaborate on evidence-based project development

whenever possible. At times, Researchers will offer their skills to conduct internal evaluations of

DAMEC projects or to provide support to Project Officers in working with external-evaluation

consultants. Furthermore, Project Officers are involved in a number of community-based

groups, networks and interagency meetings. As such, they play an important role in promoting

DAMEC research to CALD communities, and to the AOD, mental health and other health care

sectors.

2.3.9 Student Research Placements

Student Research Placements are to be currently enrolled in a registered and accredited

education institution, where their placement contributes to the completion of the award for

which they are enrolled. Student Researchers are to also have an academic supervisor

representing their education institution. Student Researchers are responsible for the ethical

conduct of research activities they undertake as directed by their supervisor. Any outputs

produced as part of, or resulting from, their placement should credit DAMEC appropriately. The

Student Researcher is responsible for providing their DAMEC supervisor with draft versions of

outputs for review and edits, and final copies. Student Research Placements are to be recognised

for their contributions in any publications arising from their placement at DAMEC. Intellectual

property as outlined in section 2.3 also relates to work produced as part of Student Research

Placements.

2.4 Consumer participation

DAMEC defines its ‘consumers’ as AOD sector organisations, multicultural and ethnic

organisations: including both the workers and the clients of these services, and CALD

communities in NSW. In this sense, DAMEC’s principle objectives are to be met through actively

seeking collaborative research opportunities with the aforementioned consumer groups.

Depending on the context, DAMEC encourages setting up advisory groups to facilitate

collaboration and feedback. A standing membership review item exists on agendas for the

Research Subcommittee so as to ensure that consumer participation at all levels of research

governance is sought and obtained, where possible.

2.5 Guidelines for convening advisory groups

All advisory groups should be convened upon a clear and agreed upon list of aims. Membership

should be oriented around principles of inclusion, where a range of stakeholders offering a mix

of expertise, experience and interest are engaged to participate.

Agendas for meetings should be pre-advised to all members. Minutes should be taken at all

meetings and should be disseminated promptly to all members of the group after each meeting.


Where possible, the location of meetings should be rotated between sites of most convenience

to members, or should be determined based on the needs of members in the interests of

maximum participation.

2.6 Intellectual property

Data generated in the process of research and other research materials in most cases will be the

property of DAMEC, but there may be exceptions depending on collaborative agreements and

data storage plans. The authors of research and evaluation outputs are specified on such

documentation and referenced accordingly. In all cases, agreements relating to the specifics of

data ownership and authorship should be reached between collaborating organisations and

researchers before each project is commenced.

2.6.1 Plagarism

Full citation of sources is to be published as part of all DAMEC research and evaluation. This

includes appropriate citation for advice, information and review contributions.

2.7 Review processes

Review processes should reference the outcome measures established at the commencement of

all research and evaluation.

The review processes for research at DAMEC are illustrated in the figure below. Where possible,

participants in research should have the opportunity to provide feedback on interview

transcripts and reports before they are published. Some research designs, particularly where

participation has been anonymous, do not enable dissemination of draft reports to participants.


2.8 Dissemination of findings

DAMEC takes seriously its obligation to inform and share research outcomes with other

researchers, healthcare providers, and the communities it represents through disseminating its

research and evaluation findings. At the commencement of each project consideration and

planning should be given to the appropriate project specific dissemination pathways. The

protocols below are those common to all research conducted at DAMEC.

2.8.1 Researcher responsibility

DAMEC researchers have the following responsibilities in relation to dissemination:

a. Researchers should be committed to analysing and publishing all the results of research,

even where negative findings or findings contrary to their hypotheses are reached.

b. All citations should be included and accurate. Plagiarism is subject to disciplinary

measures.

c. Efforts should be made to offer presentations and workshops to staff regarding the

findings of research, as well as inter-agency presentations and conferences. Such events

should be seen as important opportunities to influence practice through evidence.

2.8.2 Internal dissemination

All DAMEC staff members are informed about research outputs through staff meetings, staff

reports and internal email. All outcomes of research and evaluation that involve DAMEC

Primary authors create research output Draft 1

Collaborating authors /

organisations review

Feedback incorporated into

Draft 2

DAMEC CEO reviews Draft 2


Draft 3

Participants to receive Draft 3


Draft 4

Research Subcommitee

reviews Draft 2

Additional DAMEC staff member to review Draft 2

If major revisions authors & CEO to

review

Draft 4 finalised for dissemination

Figure 4: DAMEC Research Publication and Review Processes


healthcare providers are to be discussed at staff meetings and where possible through

information sessions held by researchers and evaluators. Such meetings should emphasise staff

feedback and practical implementation of research and evaluation recommendations.

2.8.3 External dissemination

The following protocols apply in relation to external dissemination of research outputs.

a. All participants should be made aware of the intention to publish the findings from the

study in which they participate. The only exclusion to this general rule is where data is

aggregated and de-identified (eg. National Minimum Data Set or other large quantitative

data sets). Research protocols should detail these processes.

b. Participants should be informed of research outcomes before dissemination into the

public domain, with time allowed for participants to respond to the research report.

c. Public dissemination should not occur until the results of reviewing processes have

reached their conclusion (see section 2.5).

d. Every effort should be made to acknowledge those involved in the research.

e. Funding sources, including in-kind support must be acknowledged in reporting.

f. Research findings may not be published more than once, unless prior publication is

disclosed to publishers. This does not include reviews, anthologies, collections or

translations.

g. Opportunities to promote publications should be sought through DAMEC’s own

resources (internal emails, website, publications etc), collaborating agencies’ resources

(such as websites, magazines, internal e-lists etc), and cross-sector research online lists.

h. All research outputs should be listed in the DAMEC Publications spreadsheet, with

electronic copies saved in the DAMEC Publications folder on the shared drive, in order to

assist with future dissemination.

i. Large research outputs, particularly those receiving specific project funding, should be

submitted to APO Weekly Briefing and Radar Online Database.

2.9 Fostering evidence-based practice

Research should consider how best to implement recommendations arising from research. For

research to be most useful it should be close to practice. In many cases however, research

findings will have bearing on policy decisions which may be harder to follow and may occur

over long periods of time. DAMEC will seek to foster relationships with peak bodies in order for

research findings to have a broad influence. DAMEC Researchers should work closely with

DAMEC Project Officers to translate research findings directly into health promotion and

community development projects, where relevant. DAMEC Researchers should work with the

CEO and Clinical Governance Committee of the DAMEC Counselling Service to ensure that

internal and external service evaluation recommendations are implemented and staff are given

the opportunity to learn from evaluation findings.


3. Ethical conduct

3.1 Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) approval

3.1.1 Research projects

It is always necessary to apply to a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) for ethical

review if the research will be published and/or the research involves the direct participation of

vulnerable populations. See Figure 4 for HREC submission decision process. The usual lead

HREC for DAMEC projects is the NSW Population and Health Services Research Ethics

Committee located at the Cancer Institute NSW. However, which HREC approached for ethical

review also depends on the area where the research is to be conducted and any research

partners, as such it is up to the discretion of the Senior Research Officer, the Research

Subcommittee and/or the Advisory Group (if applicable) to determine the most appropriate

HREC body to apply to.

Approval from the respective HREC is to be documented as part of any publications arising from

an approved research methodology. Similarly, the name of the approving HREC is to be included

on all paperwork to be distributed to participants at the time of conducting the research, as well

as during dissemination of the final research product.

3.1.2 Evaluation and consultation

Application for ethical review for service and project evaluation is to be determined by the

evaluator. The same is true for consultation that may occur in relation to an internal or external

project or program. In the case that the evaluation or consultation is to be conducted internally

by DAMEC, the same ethical considerations apply. If the evaluation or consultation data and

findings are to be published or if the methodology includes participants in a moderate to high

risk category, ethical review will be necessary. In cases where participants are in a low risk

category and findings are not to be published publically (but rather, are to be supplied to a

funding body as part of funding requirements or used internally to enhance or understand the

function of a service or program), it is DAMEC’s responsibility to deliberate the ethics of the

proposed methodology on advice from the Research Subcommittee. See Figure 5 for HREC

submission decision process.


* It is recommended that HREC approval be considered for all research, consultation and evaluation projects

conducted at DAMEC given the sensitivity of the work as well as the marglinalised nature of DAMECs target

population. Advice should also be sought from the Research Subcommittee if not applying for HREC approval

is being considered.

Does it involve

primary research

with people?

Submit to HREC for

ethics approval

HREC approval may

not be required* Does it involve

primary research

with people?

Will the results

be published or

disseminated?

Yes Yes

Yes

No No

No

Figure 5 HREC submission decision making process

Research project Evaluation or consultation


3.2 Privacy and confidentiality

The following guidelines are to be considered and adapted to the specific needs of each research

project, in some cases the following suggestions may be improved to better suit the particular

context. The design of any research involving people in unequal or dependent relationships

must pay special attention to these measures to safeguard participant confidentiality. While the

names of services may not be listed in any reporting, the services might be categorised into

service types for comparative analysis (for example broader categories like residential services,

counselling services, pharmacotherapy etc). Similarly, when describing participant groups,

certain research projects may identify groups by categories such as particular CALD

communities, age, gender; substance-used or by issue(s) identified.

3.2.1 Protecting individuals confidentiality

Use of identifying codes is advisable to replace participants’ names. Password protected

spreadsheets should only be accessible to named researchers. There should only be one place

where the respondent names or contact details can be associated with recorded interviews or

handwritten notes. Interview transcripts should only be labeled using the identifying codes. On

completion of the project (after the final report is published and disseminated to participants)

the electronic file linking respondents with their identifying codes must be deleted.

In cases where participant confidentiality is necessary, the only reason for linking respondents

with the information they provide is on event of a respondent choosing to withdraw from the

study after providing information. If during the course of providing information a respondent

names themselves, or reveals other identifiable information, the identifiable information will be

deleted from the transcript or notes. Identifiable information includes the following:

a) The use of their full name, or the full name of anyone they are connected to personally,

or their first name or surname alone if the name is particularly uncommon in NSW.

b) Describing their place of residence in identifiable detail, particularly when coupled with

their first name if it has been mentioned.

c) Describing their involvement in a situation, event or position that had gained public

attention (such as the media) causing them to be potentially identified based on the

description of their role in the given event, situation or position.

d) Describing their involvement with a health service or agency in a manner that may

identify them.

3.2.2 Protecting the confidentiality of health or sector professionals

This will be as outlined above. Researchers should be as explicit as possible about what

information is to be removed from transcripts. The following are examples of potentially

identifiable information to be removed from transcripts and notes:

a) Current employer or employment history.

b) Employment location if this may identify them.

c) Specific job title (for example ‘Arabic bilingual drug counsellor for Western Sydney’

would be change to ‘bilingual AOD counsellor’).


3.3 Data storage and handling

The following sections respond to handling data appropriately at different times during the

research process.

3.3.1 During the research project

The following measures are taken to ensure the security of information from misuse, loss, or

unauthorised access during the research project:

a) Hand written interview notes and the digital recorder are to be physically stored in a

locked filing cabinet at DAMEC.

b) Computer files, such as interview transcriptions or SPSS data files, will be stored on an

external hard-drive that is to be stored in a locked filing cabinet when not in use.

c) Personal details of respondents are to be saved locally on a password protected

electronic file for the sole purpose of making contact with respondents to provide them

with a copy of the results, this file will be deleted once the research has been

disseminated.

d) Data collected and stored on clouds and other online systems, ie. surveys or digital

forms, will be password protected.

e) The only people who should handle information involved in the research process are

project researchers, interview transcribers (if applicable), interpreters (if applicable)

and members of Ethics Committees whose role is to monitor the conduct of ethical

research.

f) Where a third party has been contracted to hold data involved in a project, eg. An online

survey, the terms of DAMEC’s contract with them will require information privacy be

maintained.

3.3.2 Following project completion

After project completion information will be stored in the same way as detailed above. The only

people who will handle this information will be the project researchers or the person holding

the position of Senior Research Officer at DAMEC. The information stored at the completion of

research projects will be de-identified, unless otherwise stipulated due to good reason. All files

generated through online surveys should be saved to DAMEC’s server and password protected.

Subscriptions to web survey development clouds should be terminated after projects are

completed.

Data storage time

Data will be held for 5 years for research projects. For short-term research projects or for

assessment purposes, such as evaluations that will not disseminate findings publically including

un-published projects conducted by students, it may be acceptable to hold data for 1 year. In

these cases advice should be sought from the Research Subcommittee on the storage protocol if

the project does not involve HREC approval.

In the event of personnel changes

The individual holding the position of Senior Research Officer at DAMEC takes over

responsibility for such information as part of their role. If the position is vacant this


responsibility becomes that of the CEO. As part of handover procedures, Research personnel

must record passwords and file locations.

Data disposal & deletion

Once data has been stored for the specified time, i.e. 5 years unless otherwise specified, this

information needs to be securely destroyed. Electronic information will be deleted from the

external hard-drive. Written notes, printed transcripts and all other non-aggregated data will be

shredded either in-house or using professional confidential document destruction businesses in

the case of large scale surveys such as the prevalence studies. Such businesses should hold the

Australian Government’s T4 Protective Security accreditation. It is recommended that de-

identified data be sent to the Social Sciences Database.

3.4 Participant reimbursement

The provision of reimbursement to participants is recommended, however decisions pertaining

to reimbursement should consider the parameters and goals of each project. Reimbursement

for participation should not incentivise participation in research. It should offer material

recognition for the time taken up by voluntary participation.

Should participants be provided with financial reimbursement, generic vouchers, which cannot

be spent on tobacco and/or alcohol products, are recommended (NDARC 2006). The type of

reimbursement should also be determined with consideration of the nature and goals of each

project. Where participants are health or AOD sector professionals, reimbursement is not

usually required as participation would usually fall within their professional duties and work

hours.

3.5 Complaints handling procedures

All participants in DAMEC research are to be informed about the relevant complaints

mechanism as part of participant recruitment procedures.

All DAMEC research should also cite at least one contact from DAMEC on all participant

information forms and consent forms. The delegated staff member to handle complaints should

be acting in a supervisory role or be a member of the Board of Directors. This staff delegate

should be negotiated before the commencement of each research project.

The National Statement 5.6.5 states that “where complaints cannot be readily resolved by

communication between the complainant and the review body that is the subject of the

complaint, complainants should have access to a person external to that review body to handle

the complaint” (p93). Research approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee should cite

the Committee’s name and contact details. Research conducted at any hospital, and thus having

undergone a Site Specific Assessment, should cite the patient/client representative contact

information. It is the Research Supervisor’s responsibility to notify a higher authority.

Complaints pertaining to evaluations should be resolved by the DAMEC Board of Directors.


Should a complaint be received by the Senior Research Officer directly, this person should raise

the complaint with her/his supervisor and determine a reasonable response from there.

Should a complaint that a researcher or someone employed by DAMEC to engage in research or

evaluation be lodged, the delegated staff member for handling complaints is responsible for

initiating a response. This person will be guided by section 5.6 Handling Complaints in the

National Statement and also Part B ‘Breaches of the code, research misconduct, and the

framework for resolving allegations’ in Australian Code for the responsible conduct of research.

Responses may involve a combination of strategies, including discreet investigation or a formal

inquiry, and/or recommending sanctioning or a penalty. Advice should be sought, at the

discretion of the responsible complaints officer, from other professionals with relevant

experience. An advisor should not be involved if he/she has a relevant conflict of interest

(Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research 2007, 10.3). All matters discussed

with advisors should remain confidential. Any conclusions reached should be put in writing.

3.6 Research misconduct and disciplinary measures

Research misconduct is understood as pertaining to the following three areas identified in

Section 10.1 in the Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (2007):

a) ‘an alleged breach of the code’

b) ‘intent and deliberation, reckless or gross persistent negligence’

c) ‘serious consequences, such as false information on the public record, or adverse

effects on research participants, animals or the environment’.

Findings of misconduct may be found to correspond with general staff policy and procedures,

for example harassment, bullying or financial misconduct. In these cases, the disciplinary

procedure is outlined in DAMEC staff policy. However, in the case that misconduct pertains to

the conduct of research (as defined above), it is the responsibility of the CEO to advise the Board

of Directors where any sanction, penalty or other actions to remedy the situation will be

determined. The CEO in liaison with the Board of Directors will be responsible for advising

expert groups and considering public statements as appropriate.

3.7 Conflicts of interest

3.7.1 Researchers

DAMEC’s definition of conflict of interest is in line with the Australian Code for the Responsible

Conduct of Research. The Code stipulates that,

A conflict of interest exists where there is a divergence between the individual

interests of a person and their professional responsibilities such that an independent

observer might reasonably conclude that the professional actions of that person are

unduly influenced by their own interest. (2007, 7.1)


DAMEC understands that actual or perceived conflicts of interest limit and/or damage research

integrity. As such researchers are encouraged to disclose personal interest before commencing

research.

For research undergoing ethical approval processes prior to commencement, conflict of interest

is also considered by ethics committees prior to project approval. This allows DAMEC Research

to benefit from the professional opinions of third party reviewers, regarding perceived conflicts

of interest that may go unnoticed by DAMEC staff and the Research Subcommittee.

DAMEC’s general policy on managing conflicts of interest applies to conflicts of interest in

research. Where a researcher identifies a potential conflict of interest, supervisors should keep

a record of the conflict and corresponding management strategies employed. Confidential

information should be omitted from such records.

3.7.2 Advisory groups

When forming advisory groups potential conflicts of interest are to be considered by

researchers and supervisory bodies. Potential members on advisory groups should be asked

whether they consider themselves to have any potential conflicts of interest.

3.7.3 Funding sources

Research is subject to the same policies with respect to funding sources as other areas of

DAMEC’s work. Please refer to the organisation’s Policies and Procedures.


4 Mitigating associated risks

4.1 Safety protocols

DAMEC safety protocols are modeled on the NDARC technical report number 138 (Day et al

2002). Specific adaption to DAMEC’s particular research contexts are detailed below.

Furthermore, each research project should develop a project specific safety protocol that is in

line with the above mentioned policies and procedures, and adapts these to the specific project

aims and methodology.

4.1.1 Interview location

An appropriate interview location is one where the safety of the interviewer is never under

threat; and the integrity of the interview is never compromised.

Sometimes it is necessary to strike a balance between maintaining the integrity of the

interview and interviewer safety in order to arrive at a reasonable interview location.

In situations in which one of the two requirements must be compromised, the safety of

the interviewer must always take precedence. (Day et al 2002, 16)

DAMEC ascribes to the same requirements outlined in sections 3.1.3 to 3.1.6 outlined in the

NDARC report (Day et al 2002, 17-19). Wherever possible, interviews are to take place at

agencies and/or services, provided that requirements outlined in the NDARC report are met

(2002, 17). These being that:

a) Agency staff members consent to researchers conducting interviews on their premises

at that time.

b) The interview takes place in a room that is well within the hearing range of agency staff.

c) The interview is conducted in a well-lit and relatively private room, or at least a room

where agency staff can supervise.

d) The agency staff members are aware that an interview is being conducted.

e) The agency staff members are aware of approximately how long the interview should

take.

f) There is no 'back exit' that participants would be aware of that they could 'escape' from

should an adverse event occur. (2002, 17)

In addition to these, DAMEC adds that,

g) Wherever possible the interviewer positions themselves in a seat closer to the exit than

the respondent, this may require rearranging the room prior to interviewing.

When interviewing in locations other than agencies the location must be discussed and agreed

on with the Senior Research Officer. The interviewer should suggest the alternate interview

location to the interviewee, and it should be a busy, public, centrally located place with which

the interviewer is familiar and has preferably used for interviews in the past (ibid).


Interviews in participant’s homes should be avoided. If home visits are unavoidable, they must

be done in pairs and only if approved by DAMEC’s CEO and meet HREC approvals.

4.1.2 Notification for field research

Where researchers are conducting research on their own (as opposed to in pairs) the following

protocol is to be observed.

a) When an interview is scheduled research officers are to notify their supervisor of the

interview time, location and estimated completion time.

b) Research officers are to ensure that their mobile phone is charged, switched on, and on

silent during field visits.

c) On arrival to the interview location research officers are to notify their supervisor of

their arrival by SMS.

d) If the research officer has not sent an SMS within 10 minutes of their scheduled arrival

time their supervisor is to contact them to confirm their arrival.

e) The research officer is to advise their supervisor if their estimated completion time

differs from that initially communicated.

f) Upon completion of the field visit research officers are to notify their line managers by

SMS as they are leaving the site. If the research officer should require debriefing then

they are to have a telephone conversation with their line manager (see 4.3 Debriefing

Protocol).

g) If the research officer has not contacted their supervisor with 15 minutes of their

estimated completion time their supervisor is to call them on their mobile to confirm

their departure. If they cannot be contacted within 30 minutes of their estimated

completion time their line manager is to call the interview location to locate them.

4.1.3 Approaches to participant distress and discomfort

Given the nature of some of the research that DAMEC carries out, it is possible that participants

in research may experience discomfort or distress. The risk of this occurring is more likely when

using methods that involve contact between participants and researchers, such as interviews or

focus groups. Furthermore, clients may misunderstand the role of the interviewer/researcher,

seeing them as an authority figure or as a welfare worker. In such a variety circumstances, it is

necessary that researchers respond in a way that eases discomfort, deescalates distress or

panic, and provides participants with options to address the situation. Researchers should not

attempt to act in counselling, social work or other clinical roles. Generally, an interviewer’s

response to expressions of discomfort or distress from a research participant should consider

the following:

a) Asking the participant if there is anything that the researcher can do to help,

b) Asking the participant if there is any one that they would like them to contact to seek

help,

c) Explaining that the interview or focus group can stop if the participant wishes,

d) Inform the participant that they can chose to have the information they have provided

erased,

e) Reiterate the role of the researcher,

f) Offer to put the participant in contact with a clinician or welfare worker,


g) Provide helpline numbers,

h) Contact emergency services.

4.1.4 Mandatory Reporting

Mandatory reporting is required if a participant discloses an intention to harm himself/herself,

to harm others or provides information related to child abuse. Researchers should report

immediately to their supervisor if they do not feel capable of reporting this information to the

relevant State body. For detailed information on the appropriate procedure for each of these 3

areas of mandatory reporting see NDARC technical report number 138 (p24-25).

4.1.5 Debriefing protocol

Data collection through participant interviews, focus groups and by other such face-to-face

mechanisms can also expose researchers to difficult and sometimes upsetting situations.

Discomfort may arise as a result of the content of information shared, or due to behaviour that

cannot be feasibly predicted. In any event post interview that the researcher feels discomfort,

they are encouraged to call their supervisor. The role of the supervisor is to provide the

conversational space for the researcher to discuss what occurred, mediate the situation and

draw upon further assistance if required.

4.2 Legal issues

DAMEC Research and Evaluation should not expose research participants to the risk of potential

litigation. Participants should not be requested to disclose the details of their own or anyone

else’s involvement in illicit activity. As part of participant information, participants should be

informed of their right to withdraw from a study or refuse to answer particular questions, as

well as researcher/evaluator’s reporting duties as required by law.


5. Appendix: Framework implementation

This checklist should be filled out during the final planning stages of all research and evaluation

projects at DAMEC.

Criteria Status [Yes/WIP/No]

Comments

1. Has the DAMEC Research Framework been referred to during research/evaluation planning?

2.1 Does the research/evaluation project address at least one of DAMEC’s core objectives?

2.2 Has the project considered potential impacts upon and/or involvement of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander peoples?

2.3 Is everyone involved in the project aware of their role and responsibilities?

2.4 Are there measures in place to support consumer-participant involvement in this project?

2.5 Does the project advisory group involve a range of stakeholders? Does the advisory group have a clear statement of aims, and terms of reference?

2.6 Does the project have an agreement on data ownership with all collaborating individuals, consultants, collaborating agencies and funding bodies?

2.7 Is there a documented plan for reviewing the project at various points during its operation? Does the plan address specific outcome measures?


2.8 Does the dissemination plan meet the specifications outlined in the framework? 2.9 Has a plan been developed to translate research output into changes in policy, service and clinical practices?

3.1 Has the project been approved by an HREC or the relevant overseeing body?

3.2 Does the project plan account for the privacy and confidentiality issues as outlined in the Framework?

3.3 Does the data storage and handling plan meet the specification of the framework during and after research completion?

3.4 Has participant reimbursement been considered in accordance with the Framework?

3.5 Is there a strategy in place to handle complaints and grievances that may arise within the particular parameters of the project?

3.6 Are all bodies involved aware of DAMEC’s misconduct and disciplinary procedures?

3.7 Have conflicts of interest involving research staff, advisory group members and sources of funding been disclosed, considered and documented?

4.1 Does the project have its own safety protocols, which meet the standards stipulated in the Framework?

4.2 Have all potential legal issues been considered and is there a plan to address these?


6. References

Australian Government. (2011) National Drug Strategy 2010-2015 issued by the Ministerial

Council on Drug Strategy. Canberra.

Day,C., et al. (2002) Interviewer Safety in the Drug and Alcohol Field: A Safety Protocol and

Training Manual for Staff of the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre NDARC Technical

Report No. 138, National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, Sydney.

National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre (2006) ‘Payments to illicit drug users who

participate in research interviews’ [position statement], University of New South Wales,

Randwick.

National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian Research Council, Universities

Australia (2007) Australian code of conduct for responsible research. Australian Government,

Canberra.

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2003) Values and ethics: Guidelines for ethical

conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research. Australian Government,

Canberra.

National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, the Australian Vice-

Chancellor’s Committee (2007; 2013) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research.

Australian Government, Canberra.

National Health and Medical Research Council. (2003) When does quality assurance in health

care require independent ethical review? Australian Government, Canberra.

NSW Department of Health (2005) A guide to consumer participation in NSW Drug and Alcohol

Services, NSW Ministry of Health, North Sydney.

Privacy NSW. (2002) Statutory Guidelines on Research, Privacy NSW, Sydney.

DAMEC Research and Evaluation Framework...Page 5 of 29 This framework is a living document and...

Documents

Transcript of DAMEC Research and Evaluation Framework...Page 5 of 29 This framework is a living document and...