Knowledge of Federal Regulations for Mental Health Research Involving Prisoners.

BACKGROUND: Given their vulnerability to coercion and exploitation, prisoners who participate in research are protected by Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) regulations designed to ensure their safety and wellbeing. Knowledge of these regulations is essential for researchers who conduct and institutional review boards (IRBs) that oversee mental health research in correctional settings. METHODS: We explored depth of knowledge of OHRP regulations by surveying a nationwide sample of: (1) mental health researchers who have conducted research in correctional settings; (2) mental health researchers who have conducted research in non-correctional settings; (3) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in correctional settings; (4) IRB members who have overseen mental health research in in non-correctional settings; and (5) IRB prisoner representatives. Participants responded to a 10-item knowledge questionnaire based on OHRP regulations. RESULTS: 1,256 participants provided usable data (44.9% response rate). Results revealed limited knowledge of OHRP regulations, with a mean across groups of 44.1% correct answers. IRB Prisoner representatives, IRB members, and researchers with correctional experience demonstrated the highest levels of knowledge; however, even these participants were able to correctly answer only approximately 50% of the items. CONCLUSIONS: Although awareness that prisoners are a protected population and that different regulatory procedures apply to research with them is likely to be universal among researchers and IRB members, our findings reveal limited mastery of the specific OHRP regulations that are essential knowledge for researchers who conduct and IRB members who oversee mental health research in correctional settings. Given well-documented health and healthcare disparities, prisoners could potentially benefit greatly from mental health research; increasing knowledge of the OHRP regulations among researchers and IRB members is a crucial step toward meeting this important public health goal.

Psychiatric symptomatology among individuals in alcohol detoxification treatment.

The coexistence of psychiatric symptomatology among individuals receiving longer-term treatment for alcohol use disorders has been well-established; however, less is known about comorbidity among individuals receiving alcohol detoxification. Using the Brief Symptom Inventory [BSI; Derogatis, L. R. (1992). BSI: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual--II. Towson, MD: Clinical Psychometric Research], we compared psychiatric symptomatology among 815 individuals receiving short-term detoxification services with normative data from non-patients, psychiatric patients, and out-of-treatment individuals using street drugs. Findings revealed that individuals in the current sample reported a wide range of psychiatric symptoms with over 80% meeting BSI criteria for diagnosable mental illness. These BSI scores were significantly more severe than those reported by out-of-treatment individuals using street drugs and most closely resembled BSI scores reported for adult psychiatric inpatients. Findings suggest that routine screening for severe mental health symptoms appears warranted in detoxification units. Such screening would greatly increase the chance that coexistence of substance use and other psychiatric disorders would be properly addressed in ongoing treatment.

Moderating effects of control on the relationship between stress and change.

Given the well-documented impact of stress on employees, it is important to understand moderating factors, especially in behavioral health treatment settings, where constant change occurs. Staff members at four mental health (n=663) and four substance abuse (n=256) treatment agencies completed questionnaires inquiring about perceptions of direct and indirect agency changes, stress experienced due to changes, and control and input into the changes. Results revealed that as direct and indirect change increased, stress increased; as level of control and input into changes increased, stress decreased. Control and input served as a moderating variable between stress and direct change, but not for indirect change.