Abstract
Guidance and templates for the development of participant information sheets invariably specify the need for inclusion of contact details for the person(s) who will be dealing with queries and complaints. For instance, the Health Research Authority in the UK suggests that ‘contact details of where a complaint can be made should be given to potential participants’ (HRA, n.d.). During the ethics approval process, research ethics committees check to see that the contact details for someone in the research team, and possibly also someone external to the research team (like the approving ethics committee), are provided to the potential participants. But are simple contact details on the information sheet sufficient for capturing and dealing with queries and complaints? The scarcity of information regarding complaints in research suggests not.
There are numerous reasons why people might not be contacting the named persons on their information sheets, as hinted at by Chatfield et al. (2022) in this issue. Maybe this is related to a disinclination to complain; maybe it is because the provision written contact details, often for persons unknown, acts more like a deterrent than a catalyst for effective communication.
It is dangerous for researchers to assume that participants remain enrolled in a project because they are happy with it, and that they understand its purpose. In this issue, Mohammed-Ali et al. (2022) demonstrate clearly that this is not always the case. Open and free-flowing channels of communication throughout a research project can help to avoid misunderstandings and to ensure ongoing consent. They can also help to reveal concerns as they arise.
Hopefully, most concerns can be dealt with locally through dialogue, but for effective handling of complaints, lines of communication must be accompanied by accessible and acceptable mechanisms for resolution. For serious complaints with legal implications, this might include referral to the relevant authorities.
Truly accessible and effective mechanisms for dealing with complaints must be tailored to suit the needs and preferences of those who will be using them. What works well in one environment, and in one particular project may not work well in a different environment or project. Nevertheless, there is value in sharing our experiences of what has worked well, and what has not worked so well. Hence, I am inviting researchers who have attempted to develop an effective mechanism for dealing with queries and complaints to submit to this journal, perhaps as a case study. This topic requires further exchange and investigation because the implementation of accessible complaints mechanisms is a requisite for ethical research.