LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Chris Hafner-Eaton <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 20 Mar 1997 12:53:35 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (37 lines)
Okay, there seems to be some confusion on the post I made regarding the TLC
survey.  Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could have been.   Here is how I've
explained it to several of you who have privately contacted me:

Since TLC requires that members be LLL Leaders, then by definition
they are connected to LLLI (even if not officially).  This is certainly as
true as when I was just reprimanded for using colloquial phrases (e.g.
WarmLLLy) indicating my LLL affiliation.  [Apparently some of the Lactnet
lurkers feel as though they must report everything I do to our advisors.]
IF a researcher reports "that these data were collected through a
member-only email list with international membership of ###"  and does not
state TLC, LLLI, or LEADER in her report, THEN no approval needs to be
sought.  TLC list members are free to do whatever their list-owners
permit--provided they don't then publish it elsewhere with that
specifically spelled-out affiliation.  If they wish to conduct a survey of
Leaders (either through TLC or other channels), then they need to pursue
Research Review Committee approval from LLLI.

 This is the similar to  when research has been conducted at a hospital that
does not want to be directly identified or indirectly identifiable (say
there's only one hospital in a town and the researcher says "a community
hospital in Corvallis").  In this example, the correct way to report this
is to say "a community hospital in a micro-politan Pacific Northwest city."
According to the National Center for Health Statistics' confidentiality
statements, any populations under 100,000 (this may include lists in the
future) deserves special protections for anonimity because any unique
identifiers may indirectly lead curious minds to try to identify
individuals in that population.

I do apologize for the confusion.  Please do feel free to contact me if
this is not clear.
Wishing you all happy spring!

: )Chris Hafner-Eaton, PhD, MPH, CHES, IBCLC  email: [log in to unmask]   : )
: )HSR & Health Educational Consultant        voice/fax: 541 753 7340    : )
: )LLLLLLLLLLLLL**CHANGE THE WORLD, NURTURE A CHILD!**LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL : )

ATOM RSS1 RSS2