• To gain guidance on what to consider when assessing the appropriateness of remotely delivered research
• To understand which circumstances will require careful consideration, such as informed consent
• To gather methods to support the development of a supportive research relationship
• To make use of a practical and adaptable checklist
Background The assessment and monitoring of health conditions using remote or online delivery is an emerging interest in healthcare systems globally but is not routinely used in mental health research. There is a growing need to offer remotely delivered appointments in mental health research. There is a lack of practical guidance about how nurse researchers can undertake remote research appointments ethically and safely, while maintaining the scientific integrity of the research.
Aim To provide mental health nurse researchers with information about important issues to consider when assessing the appropriateness of remotely delivered research and methods to support the development of a supportive research relationship.
Discussion The practice guidance and checklist include issues a nurse researcher should consider when assessing suitability and eligibility for remotely delivered research visits, such as ethical considerations and arrangements, safety, communication, and identifying participants requiring further support. This article addresses processes to follow for assessing mental capacity, obtaining informed consent and collaboratively completing research measures.
Conclusion Remotely delivered research appointments could be acceptable and efficient ways to obtain informed consent and collect data. Additional checks need to be in place to identify and escalate concerns about safeguarding or risks.
Implications for practice Practical guidance for mental health nurse researchers when determining the appropriateness of remote research visits for participants, and an adaptable checklist for undertaking remote research appointments are outlined.
Nurse Researcher. 29, 2, 8-16. doi: 10.7748/nr.2021.e1770
Correspondence Peer reviewThis article has been subject to external double-blind peer review and has been checked for plagiarism using automated software
Conflict of interestNone declared
PermissionTo reuse this article or for information about reprints and permissions, please contact permissions@rcni.com
Write for usFor information about writing for RCNi journals, contact writeforus@rcni.com
For author guidelines, go to rcni.com/write-for-nurse-researcher
or
Alternatively, you can purchase access to this article for the next seven days. Buy now
Are you a student? Our student subscription has content especially for you.
Find out more