To study the effect, sensitivity and specificity of the abridged and full instruments of the two phases of the mental health screening methods used by the American armed forces to establish the need for a comprehensive assessment, Burdett and his colleagues conducted a study of data among the Armed Forces personnel who had completed the study. The researchers, in this case, collected data from a group of Armed Forces personnel who had already done full questionnaires evaluating their symptoms of post‐traumatic stress disorder, Civilian Version, and alcohol misuse (Burdett, Fear, Jones, Greenberg, Wessely & Rona, 2016). While it falls within the parameters of the recruitment procedure to conduct such tests on the potential army personnel, this research did not seek the consent of the staff whose data was under review, but instead only focused on getting the clearance from the body in charge (Fouka & Mantzorou, 2011) . Informed consent implies that a person who partakes of a study, directly or indirectly, must intelligently and voluntarily give their consent to be interviewed, or analyzed, and have their data and responses included in the findings of the research. It is apparent that Burdett and his team did not engage the participants in such a manner. The principle of privacy was subsequently violated in this exercise (Fouka & Mantzorou, 2011) . By not directly involving the participants to give their consent on the use of their data, it follows that the participants did not, therefore, get the room to determine the time, extent and general circumstances under which their information was shared in the study, and the final findings.
By reviewing previously filled questionnaires, this study raises a number of ethical concerns as far as the method used by the researchers is concerned, one of them being the lack of informed consent of the army personnel to give out confidential reports and test results of their health and fitness to the researchers. It can be argued that the researchers in question failed to follow the protocols of conducting a primary research by interviewing the army personnel, and instead capitalized on reviewing data from the army’s server to inform their study, thereby neglecting the need to seek the consent of the individuals whose information was obtained through the server as a secondary source.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Even though it can be argued that the participants had given their consent and right to have their information used in any way the army thought appropriate, the fact that such data was considered a property of the military is not enough reason for the researches to act without considering the rights and consent of each army personnel whose data was on the data sheet. An excellent and ethically upright researcher is one who puts into account the individual rights and opinions of the persons whose data is under scrutiny, even if such data is considered the property of a third party who gives the green light for accessing such vital information (Rumbold & Pierscionek, 2017) . This article points out that the fact that such data was under the ownership and control of a third party, it was easy, and therefore understandable, that the researchers, in this case, did not pay any particular attention to the participants. However, in the future when conducting such research, it is essential that researchers learn to put into consideration the consent and opinion of the primary participants of a study, even if they do not contribute directly in the review of the secondary data. Researchers should go the extra mile in engaging the participants after clearing with the party that controls the data. Due to the sensitive nature of the parameters, in this case, it is commendable that Burdett' team did not highlight any particular information that may have been sensitive or too personal but instead made a general observation by grouping the participants (Rumbold & Pierscionek, 2017) . Grouping participants and generalizing observation is the best way of dealing with the delicate aspects of research while at the same time protecting the rights and identity of the subjects.
References
Burdett, H., Fear, N. T., Jones, N., Greenberg, N., Wessely, S., & Rona, R. J. (2016). Use of a two‐phase process to identify possible cases of mental ill health in the UK military. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research , 25 (3), 168-177.
Fouka, G., & Mantzorou, M. (2011). What are the major ethical issues in conducting research? Is there a conflict between the research ethics and the nature of nursing? Health Science Journal , 5 (1).
Rumbold, J. M. M., & Pierscionek, B. (2017). The effect of the general data protection regulation on medical research. Journal of Medical Internet Research , 19 (2).
