Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
1
Stories and Stigma: How a Visual Narrative Influences the Stigma Level of the Audience Victoria Dinu David Nethers Portland State University
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
2
Abstract This study aims to address the effects between the use of media artifacts that use a visual narrative structure to communicate information versus a nonnarrative media artifact with the purpose of gauging its effects on persuading attitude changes regarding anxiety disorders. To better understand the effectiveness of a narrative structure versus nonnarrative information shared with the general population regarding information on anxiety disorders, a pre and post test was designed to track the change in attitudes respondents had after viewing the media artifact. Previous research has focused on understanding how successful persuasive information is when shared as a narrative as opposed to statistical evidence. Other studies have shown that nonnarrative information shared had a stronger learning impact than narrative material specifically when attempting to educate adolescents persuade an attitude change about drinking and alcohol. 16 people were surveyed; first answering demographic questions followed by filling out a survey both before and after viewing the media artifact . 8 participants were shown solely the media artifact with the visual narrative while 8 were shown exclusively the nonnarrative visual with identical voiceovers. The research results show that the media artifact viewed by participants that were showed the visual narrative media artifact had a raised level of stigma in posttest survey. The research shows that media artifacts that have a narrative format raises personal stigma levels regarding anxiety disorders. Keywords: anxiety disorders, narrative, stigma
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
3
Stories and Stigma: How a Visual Narrative Influences the Stigma Level of the Audience Mental health is a major issue in the United States. According to the Anxiety and Depression Association of America, Anxiety Disorders affect over 40 million adults in the United States, while Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) specifically affects 6.8 million (“Facts and Statistics”, 2014). These numbers are estimates based on clinical diagnoses, and may not be representative of total number, which includes those individuals who remain undiagnosed. Even with these limitations, the sheer number of individuals affected by anxiety disorders warrants a closer look at how information is communicated to the public regarding information pertinent to these disorders. The effects that anxiety disorders can have on individuals are varied, and can have far reaching consequences, and these effects are only exacerbated by a lack of knowledge and awareness of the public. As such, we intend to look at how the crafting and medium of educational messages affect the general awareness and literacy of the audience regarding anxiety disorders. One population that is normally thought to have a high risk for developing or showcasing the symptoms of an anxiety disorder is college students. Many college students are young, and are striving to find balance in the midst of new responsibilities and opportunities along with trying to strike the balance between life inside and outside of college. Their lives are less likely to have stabilized, and unknowns regarding their future often outnumber knowns. In order to focus our studies, we will first give a background and conceptualization for health literacy, mental health literacy, and anxiety disorders along with research done on better understanding
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
4
the impacts of changing attitudes by using narrative versus nonnarrative structures to persuade a change of attitude. Literature Review Mental Health Literature Review The framework of health literacy from Kickbush and associates gives a good framework for narrowing our focus onto the specific arena of mental health. From this perspective, we find that Jorm and associates’ (1997) definition of mental health literacy is appropriate. The scholars define mental health literacy as “knowledge and beliefs about mental disorders which aid [in] their recognition, management or prevention” (Jorm, et al., 1997, p. 182). This definition posits that mental health literacy includes many different factors: the ability to recognize specific disorders; knowledge of how to seek out information regarding mental health; knowledge of causes and risk factors, of self treatments and of the availability of professional help; and attitudes that promote the correct recognition of symptoms and disorders and the appropriate helpseeking. Narrative Literature Review In the health field, a nonnarrative structure is commonly used to communicate educational material regarding health. Simon Zebras and Bas van den Putte examined preventive alcohol education media artifacts that were given to adolescents with low health literacy to test to see if a nonnarrative format or narrative format was more persuasive. Their study is one of the first to compare the persuasiveness between a narrative and nonnarrative format when sharing educational material. They found that research in the past has shown and encourage the use of narrative texts to be used in order to be more effective. They found and stated in their conclusion
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
5
that narrative and nonnarrative format had about the same effect on adolescents and advise policy makers to not use narrative texts because they are more time consuming to develop. Although they use text and focus on preventative health communication instead of video media and stigma, they piece of persuasive effects align with the research done in the study. They state that “Persuasion is suggested to involve a special form of learning. This means that the information that people learn needs to be integrated with a person’s current beliefs. If the newly learned information contradicts these beliefs, this information may be disregarded [31]” (Zebregs, S., van den Putte, et. all, 2015). This would align with Social judgement Theory. Depending on the viewer's personal experience with either having an anxiety disorder, knowing someone with one or having general knowledge will impact whether the narrative media falls in their latitude of acceptance, rejection or noncommitment. The survey scale created in this research study will show their judgement process both before and after the narrative media artifact and the nonnarrative media artifact. The Research Media Artifact The media artifact that was the instigator for this research is a short video which was found on YouTube. This video is approximately two minutes long, and was created in association with the Anxiety and Depression Association of America (ADAA). The audio component of the video consists of a youngsounding female voice which addresses the audience using a softer tone, similar to what a person might use to console a friend. The voice begins by explaining that anxiety is a natural part of the human experience. She goes on to discuss how anxiety can protect us from possible harm by helping to remind us to do certain tasks, or avoid
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
6
dangerous situations. Next the video goes on to talk about how each person has a different relationship with anxiety, and it plays a greater role in some people’s decision making processes. After this she speaks of how anxiety can interfere with an individual’s ability to function in their daily life, which is referred to as an anxiety disorder, and she gives many examples of how this can happen. After focusing on many different challenges people with anxiety disorders face, the voiceover addresses the subject of possible treatments and resources, specifically the ADAA’s website. While the audio portion of the media artifact focuses on informing the audience of many of the nature of anxiety, many symptoms of anxiety disorders, and encourages the audience to find help and resources, the visual component takes a different approach. The visual component consists of a topdown stopmotion video of a paper doll character (D1), as it is manipulated to illustrate a character’s movements through a world drawn on a paper immediately behind it. The paper cutout interacts with what appears to be a small, blue, and furry creature (A1), which is meant to represent D1’s anxiety. As the voiceover explains anxiety’s purpose and effects, these concepts are illustrated through D1 interacting with the paper world around him. For instance, when the voiceover says “anxiety is the brain’s way of reminding us to take action: such as reminding us to lock the door”, A1 is shown moving about rapidly near a depiction of a door. D1 is shown looking over at A1, and proceeds to move to the door, pull out a key, and lock the door. Later in the video, A1 grows to many times its original size, and looms over D1, and inserts itself in between D1 and other people and activities. Throughout the video A1 continues to herd D1 in different directions, often which are different than D1 was originally heading. It isn’t until later in the video that A1 is reduced back to its earlier size after being hit
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
7
many times with a hammer that is labeled with the word “treatment”. After this, D1 is no longer directed by A1, and ends up interacting with other people more. The caption for the video reads “animated characters describe anxiety and anxiety disordersand the big difference between them”. While this video has some statistical information, the tone of voice of the speaker, the focus of the content, and the way that the visuals tell a story of the interactions between a man and his anxiety, it is our belief that the goal of this video was to influence the beliefs and attitudes of the audience toward anxiety disorders. The general takeaway is that while many individuals experience anxiety, those with anxiety disorders have much a much more intense relationship with anxiety, which can be debilitating if not addressed with proper treatment. Focus of Research The focus of our research was to determine any possible effects that using an artifact that contained a narrative visual component when the media artifact was created for the purpose of influencing the audience’s attitudes toward anxiety disorders. The following is our research question: R1: Does the presence of a narrative structure in a media artifact change how that artifact affects an individual's level of stigma towards anxiety disorders? Methods New Artifacts As we were curious how the visual narrative of the artifact affected the beliefs and attitudes toward anxiety disorders, or more specifically their stigma level, we needed to isolate the effect of the visual narrative from the rest of the video. In order to do this, we intended to
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
8
create a second video that followed the same format but did not have the narrative imagery. However, we did not have a way of removing the visual narrative from the original video without either leaving a blank screen, or putting some other visuals in that introduced new variables. As such, we determined the best course of action was to create two new videos. In the first video , the original script of the voiceover was read back in a similar tone and pace by one of the researchers while being filmed (O1). For the second video, we took the the audio track from O1, and spliced it together with the visual component of the original artifact. Both videos were given the same title and ending pages, and similar music to what was contained in the original video was added to both of the new artifacts. Substantial effort was made to limit the difference between the two videos could be reduced to the presence of the narrative visuals, or lack therof. The video which showed the researcher speaking was titled Without Narrative (WON), while the video containing the original visuals was titled With Narative (WN). Sample Group Our focus on anxiety disorders and mental health literacy in the broader conversation of health literacy as defined by Kickbush and associates (2006) positions collegeaged students as ideal subjects for further research. College students often go through successive major life changes in a short period of time, and are expected to meet many scholastic and social demands that may not have been present earlier in life. This environment can draw out symptoms of anxiety disorders that may have been previously undiagnosed, or possibly even lead to the development of previously nonexistent anxiety disorders. According to the research, eighty percent of American youth do not obtain needed mental health services (Kataoka, Zhang & Wells, 2002). This could be due to many factors, including a
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
9
lack of awareness of the symptoms, consequences and possible treatments, or due to other social issues, like peer pressure or cost of services. However it becomes apparent that there is a need for further efforts to reach American youth in order to educate them on both the symptoms of anxiety disorders, but also give them access to resources which can help them mitigate possible consequences. The combination of the high potential for anxiety related stress that college students experience, and the low treatment rates of young people in America, illustrate a clear and present need for better educational communication for young college students. While older college students may have left school previously, only to have returned to finish their degree after many years out in the work force. This added experience may have given them the opportunity to develop ways of coping with the stress associated with scholastic life, as well as exposed them to more information regarding anxiety disorders. While this may not be true for every returning college student, limiting our population to between the age of eighteen and twentyfive will give us a better understanding of the needs of those individuals who may need help most. The digital nature of modern society also means that younger students are likely to be more at home watching videos on YouTube, which is where our artifact was found.
Instrumentation In order to measure the stigma level toward anxiety disorders that an individual held, a portion of the Generalized Anxiety Stigma Survey (GASS) was administered to the respondents. The GASS is comprised of two parts, with ten questions each. The first part asks questions which measure the level of personal stigma an individual has toward anxiety disorders, while the second part focuses on the respondent’s perception of stigma level held by the general public.
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
10
For our purposes, we elected to not use the portion of the GASS focusing on perceived stigma, as we wanted to focus on how the narrative affected the individual’s attitudes toward anxiety disorders, and not their perception of others’ beliefs. We also created two sets of the ten personal stigma questions that were slightly modified in order to implement some reverse coding, and subtly changed the wording of others in order to diminish the feel of repetition that the respondents might experience. One final change that was made to the GASS substituted the agree/disagree likert scale measurement with an accurate/inaccurate scale. This was done in order to avoid the possibility of the results being affected by the acquiescence bias. Design The research was done as an experimental design, and involved a pretest and posttest survey that were administered before and after a video. The video was the manipulated variable, as two options gave us the ability to correlate any changes in attitude to the video. The control was the pretest score of all of the respondents. The experiment was administered in person to sixteen (N=16) individuals who fit our criteria. These experiments were given either on campus at a large urban university in the Pacific Northwest region of the US, or administered in the homes of the participants. The respondents were asked to read and complete an informed consent waiver before moving forward, and then the researcher recited a script (see Appendix A) that explained the purpose of the research and what they could expect. At this point the researcher administered the survey, which was broken down into three phases. In the first phase, the respondents were given the pretest survey form to fill out (see Appendix B), which included demographic questions regarding age and gender, as well as the modified GASS personal stigma instrument. The respondents were not limited on how much
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
11
time they took to fill out the form. In the second phase, the researcher showed the respondent either the WON video, or the WN video on a thirteen inch laptop screen. The final phase of the survey had the researcher administering the posttest survey form to the respondents, which consisted entirely of the second modified version of the GASS. Once the respondent had finished, they were thanked, and the interview research session concluded. Results Our demographic broke down into a fairly mixed group of both gender and age. 63% of our sample were male, and 44% were in the middle age cohort (2429 years old). For the research, the sample was split in half, with eight individuals being given the video with the narrative (WN), and eight being given the video without the narrative (WON). Table 1 gives more detail on the demographic breakdown, including the makeup of each experimental group (WN or WON). Table 1: Demographics
N
Male
Female
1823
2429
3035
WN
8
75%
25%
25%
25%
50%
WON
8
50%
50%
38%
63%
0%
Total
16
63%
38%
31%
44%
25%
The instrument used was a 4point Likert scale, which meant that the scores for each question ranged between 1 and 4. As such, the lowest score an individual could score was 10, and the highest was 40. Our purpose was not to determine precise measurements of an individual’s stigma levels, and instead were looking to determine if there would be any noticeable change from watching the videos. The ordinal data that we received from the GASS
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
12
allowed us to compare the changes in response to the instrument’s questions between the two groups. As seen in Table 2, both experimental groups scored similarly in the pretest questionnaire, though the standard deviation of the WON group was quite high. However, the group that was shown the video artifact with the narrative visual component exhibited a substantial growth in their level of stigma, while the group that was shown the video without the narrative experienced almost no change in their level of stigma. In other words, the WON video did not correlate to any change in stigma toward anxiety disorders in those that watched it, while watching the WN video correlated strongly with a higher level of stigma toward anxiety disorders. Table 2: General Results
Pretest Mean
σ
Posttest Mean
σ
Stigma Change
σ
WN
14
0.93
18.25
3.06
4.25
2.60
WON
15.25
4.77
15.75
3.45
0.5
3.07
All Participants
14.625
3.38
17
3.41
2.375
3.36
This increase in measured stigma levels toward anxiety disorders was consistent across gender, with both male and female respondents in the WN group showing a greater average change in their levels of stigma (female: +4; male: +4.33) than those in the WON group (female: no change; male: +1). Table 3a: Female Respondents
Female
N
Pretest Average
Posttest Average
Change
WN
2
14
18
4
WON
4
15
15
0
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
Total
6
13
14.67
16
Table 3b: Male Respondents
Male
N
Pretest Average
Posttest Average
Change
WN
6
14
18.33
4.33
WON
4
15.5
16.5
1
Total
10
14.6
17.6
In regards to the different age cohorts, the WN group members that belonged to the older and younger cohorts (1823 and 3035) both showed substantial growth in the stigma level, while the middle age cohort in the WN group showed only slight growth in their stigma level. In the WON group, the youngest cohort (1823) exhibited a slight decline in stigma level, while the middle cohort exhibited a slight growth. The was not enough data to determine any pattern of growth or decline in stigma in those of the older cohort who belonged to the WON group. Table 4: Age Cohorts
1823
2429
3035
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest N Average Average Change N Average Average Change N Average Average Change
WN
2
13
WON 3
14.33
Total 5
13.8
18.5
5.5
2
13
1.33
5
15.2
7
14
15.8 15.08
15.5
1.5
4
17.4
1.6
0 n/a
16.64
4
14.5
14.5
19.5
5
n/a
n/a
19.5
Discussion The research question asked whether the presence of a narrative structure in a media artifact would change how that artifact affects an individual's level of stigma towards anxiety disorders? The results of our research show that there was a marked difference in the change in
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
14
stigma levels from before and after the respondents were shown the two different videos. In every measured demographic, the stigma level reported by individuals rose after watching the video with the narrative (WN). This was the case especially for those in both the younger and older age cohorts. As great care was taken to limit the variability between the two videos to the presence, or lack thereof, of the narrative visual component, we claim with a high degree of confidence that this specific narrative element created an effect that was opposite of what was desired by the original artifact creators. This draws into question the effectiveness of using a narrative structure to persuade individuals to change their attitudes and beliefs regarding anxiety disorders and other health disorders. It is important to note that one of the intentions of the video may have been to help those that were experiencing high levels of anxiety to feel more comfortable in reaching out for help and treatment, however this is not the way the the beginning of the video is framed. Instead, many people who do not suffer from anxiety disorders might interpret the visual narrative that those who have an anxiety disorder are less capable, and possibly more unstable. Limitations One limitation of our research is that the GASS was not originally created to include any reverse coded questions, and in order to create them we had to modify the instrument. This modified instrument requires further testing in order to validate it against the original GASS, as well as other similar instruments. Time and funding constraints also required that one of the researchers be the actor whose visage and voice were used in the two videos. This complicated the fact that both researchers were giving the surveys. In order to limit any affect that this had on our results, we organized it so that the WON artifact was shown to the respondents only by the
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
15
researcher who did not appear in the video. One final limitation was that we did not have enough data on the oldest cohort to determine how watching the WON artifact affected their stigma level. Future Research Future research would benefit from focusing on other artifacts that contain a visual narrative component. This would help to ensure that other variables were not at play in our results. It would also be beneficial to determine a respondent’s previous experience with anxiety disorders. Those who are either diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, or who are close to someone who is, are likely to interpret the visual narrative component in a different way.
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
16
Work Cited ADAA GotAnxiety. (2011). Anxiety & Anxiety Disorders. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkSypHQa9g Facts & Statistics. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.adaa.org/aboutadaa/pressroom/factsstatistics Jorm, A. F., Korten, A. E., Jacomb, P. A., Christensen, H., Rodgers, B., Pollitt, P. (1997). “Mental health literacy”: a survey of the public’s ability to recognise mental disorders and their beliefs about the effectiveness of treatment. The Medical Journal of Australia, 166(4). 182. Kickbusch, I., Wait, S., & Maag, D. (2006). Navigating health: The role of health literacy. Alliance for Health and the Future, International Longevity CentreUK. Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., de Graaf, A., Lammers, J., & Neijens, P. (2015). The effects of narrative versus nonnarrative information in school health education about alcohol drinking for low educated adolescents. BMC Public Health, 15112. doi:10.1186/s1288901524257
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
17
APPENDIX A: Script You are being asked to participate in a research study that is being done by [other researcher] and myself. We are both student researchers from the Department of Communication, at Portland State University . The purpose of this research study is to gauge the effects of different communication artifacts on beliefs, attitudes and knowledge regarding anxiety disorders. You are being asked to participate in this study in order to help us form a better understanding of the outcomes of using media artifacts, and testing their effectiveness. The survey you are about to take has three steps. To begin with, I’ll have you fill out the first part of a twopart survey. The first part of this survey will ask you a couple of demographic questions, and then will present statements that we would like you to tell us how accurate you believe these statements to be. After the first part of the survey, we will show you a video which lasts approximately two (2) minutes. Finally, we will give you the second part of the survey. This last part will have more statements, and will ask you to tell us how accurate you believe these statements are. In total this survey should take roughly 10 minutes. Please let me know when you finish each segment so I may direct you to the next portion.’ ***Give respondent first part of the survey. When respondent is finished with the first part, do not look at the answers, just put the survey into a folder. Then show them the video. Now that you are done with the first part of the survey, please watch this video. When they have watched the video, give them the second part of the survey.***
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
18
‘Here is the second portion of the survey, please let me know when you are finished.’ ***When they have complete the survey, put it into the same folder.*** ‘Thank you for participating in this survey, your input will help us to improve our communication methods regarding anxiety disorders.
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
19
APPENDIX B: Pretest Survey PART ONE: Premedia Survey 1. Age (circle one) : a. 18 23 years old b. 24 29 years old c. 30 35 years old 2. Gender (circle one) : a. Female b. Male For the following questions, circle the answer which you feel best describes how accurate the statement is: 3. An anxiety disorder is a real medical illness. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 4. An anxiety disorder is a sign of personal weakness. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 5. People with an anxiety disorder are unable to snap out of it, even if they want to. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 6. People with an anxiety disorder should be ashamed of themselves. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 7. People with an anxiety disorder can still be suitable employees. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
20
8. People with an anxiety disorder are unstable. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 9. People with an anxiety disorder are to blame for their problems. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 10. In general, people with an anxiety disorder are just lazy. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 11. People with an anxiety disorder are not a danger to others. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 12. People with an anxiety disorder care about those around them. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
21
APPENDIX C: Posttest Survey PART TWO: Postmedia Survey For the following questions, circle the answer that most aligns with your beliefs. 1. An anxiety disorder should not be considered a medical illness. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 2. Individuals who have an anxiety disorder are fragile. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 3. People with an anxiety disorder have the ability to easily shut off their symptoms. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 4. Having an anxiety disorder is something to be embarrassed about. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 5. Successful employees are much less likely to have an anxiety disorder. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 6. Individuals with an anxiety disorder are usually stable and consistent. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 7. People with an anxiety disorder should take responsibility for their own symptoms. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 8. Individuals with an anxiety disorder are generally hard workers. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
22
9. Individuals that are diagnosed with an anxiety disorder might put others at risk. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate 10. People with an anxiety disorder have egotistical qualities. a. Very Accurate b. Somewhat Accurate c. Somewhat Inaccurate d. Very Inaccurate
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
23
APPENDIX D: Media, With Narrative (WN) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxvNvlj7eJI
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
24
APPENDIX E: Media, Without Narrative (WON) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xL4_CjrHZw
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
25
APPENDIX F: Consent Form Consent to Participate in Research Communication Artifacts and Anxiety Disorder Beliefs August 1st, 2016 Introduction: You are being asked to participate in a research study that is being done by Victoria Dinu and David Nethers, who are the Principal Investigators from the Department of Communication, at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon. The purpose of this research study is to gauge the effects of different communication artifacts on beliefs, attitudes and knowledge regarding anxiety disorders. You are being asked to participate in this study because it will help us better understand the outcomes of using media artifacts and testing their effectiveness. This form will explain the research study, and will also explain the possible risks as well as the possible benefits to you. We encourage you to talk with your family and friends before you decide to take part in this research study. If you have any questions, please ask one of the study investigators. What will happen if I decide to participate? If you agree to participate, the following things will happen: You will answer a several brief survey questions, followed by watching a short video sharing information on anxiety disorder and symptoms followed by brief post survey questions. How long will I be in this study? Participation in this study will take a total of 10 to 15 minutes over one session period from beginning to completion. What are the risks or side effects of being in this study? There are no serious risks. Minor risks may include stress and inconvenience associated with participating in a research study. For more information about risks and discomforts, ask the investigator. What are the benefits to being in this study?
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
26
There is no direct benefit to participating in this study and there is no payment for participation. Information gathered from this study will be used to help improve health literacy and communication tools used to better the experience between health care provider and patients. What are the alternatives to being in this study? There are no other alternatives at this time as this class is currently in summer session there is no extra credit offered. How will my information be kept confidential? We will take measures to protect the security of all your personal information, but we cannot guarantee confidentiality of all study data. We will intake all information with anonymity. Participation in a focus group does not allow for the same level of confidentiality as other forms of research. The investigator can only be responsible for the confidentiality of the data collected by that investigator, and confidentiality may be breached by others in the focus group. As a participant in the focus group, you are encouraged not to speak of what was discussed during the Information contained in your study records is used by study staff and, in some cases it will be shared with the sponsor of the study. The Portland State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) that oversees human subject research and/or other entities may be permitted to access your records, and there may be times when we are required by law to share your information. It is the investigator’s legal obligation to report child abuse, child neglect, elder abuse, harm to self or others or any lifethreatening situation to the appropriate authorities, and; therefore, your confidentiality will not be maintained. Your name will not be used in any published reports about this study. Will I be paid for taking part in this study? No payment or extra credit for coursework. Can I stop being in the study once I begin? Yes. If at anytime you decide you want to opt out you may do so. Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. You have the right to choose not to participate or to withdraw your participation at any point in this study without any penalty. Whom can I call if I am injured while participating in this study, or if I have any questions or complaints about this study? If you have any questions, concerns or complaints at any time about the research study, Victoria Dinu, and David Nethers will be glad to answer them at +1(503) 8473777. If you need to contact someone after business hours or on weekends, please call +1(503) 8473777 and ask for Victoria Dinu or David Nethers. Whom can I call with questions about my rights as a research participant?
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
27
If you have questions regarding your rights as a research participant, you may call the PSU Office for Research Integrity at (503) 7252227 or 1(877) 4804400. The ORI is the office that supports the PSU Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB is a group of people from PSU and the community who provide independent oversight of safety and ethical issues related to research involving human participants. For more information, you may also access the IRB website at https://sites.google.com/a/pdx.edu/research/integrity. CONSENT You are making a decision whether to participate in this study. Your signature below indicates that you have read the information provided (or the information was read to you). By signing this consent form, you are not waiving any of your legal rights as a research participant. You have had an opportunity to ask questions and all questions have been answered to your satisfaction. By signing this consent form, you agree to participate in this study. A copy of this consent form will be provided to you. ____________________________ ____________________________ ___________ Name of Adult Subject (print) Signature of Adult Subject Date INVESTIGATOR SIGNATURE This research study has been explained to the participant and all of his/her questions have been answered. The participant understands the information described in this consent form and freely _________________________________________________ Name of Investigator/ Research Team Member (type or print) _________________________________________________ ___________________ (Signature of Investigator/ Research Team Member) Date _________________________________________________ Name of Investigator/ Research Team Member (type or print)
Running head: STORIES AND STIGMA
_________________________________________________ ___________________ (Signature of Investigator/ Research Team Member) Date
28