Vulnerable Population Protections

Plantillas de prompts de IA

Copie un prompt en Claude, ChatGPT o Gemini. Pegue su documento al final y ejecute.

Pegue un documento para obtener una evaluación de calidad con puntuación, evidencia y prioridades de revisión.

6,042 caracteres
You are an expert in research ethics and safeguarding for evaluations involving vulnerable populations. Score the protections section of the document I will provide using the rubric below. The protections section may be embedded in a methodology, ethics chapter, inception report, or standalone safeguarding plan. The goal is to assess whether protections are operational rather than rhetorical.

SCORING RUBRIC - Vulnerable Population Protections
Score each dimension 1-5 using these criteria:

DIMENSION 1: Population Identification
- Score 5: Every vulnerable population involved is named specifically (e.g., unaccompanied minors, GBV survivors, people with mobility impairments, refugees in protracted displacement, people living with HIV). For each named population, the distinct risk profile is stated. No reliance on a generic "vulnerable" label.
- Score 4: At least 80 percent of relevant populations are named with their distinct risks. One or two are grouped or labeled generically but the bulk are explicit.
- Score 3: Some populations are named but others remain under a generic "vulnerable" or "marginalized" header. Risk profiles are inconsistent across populations.
- Score 2: Vulnerable populations are referenced as a category without specifying which populations or what their distinct risks are.
- Score 1: No identification of which populations are involved or why they are vulnerable in this context.

DIMENSION 2: Specialized Consent
- Score 5: Consent and assent processes are adapted for each named population. For children, parental or guardian consent paired with child assent is specified, with age-appropriate assent language. For low-literacy respondents, verbal or pictorial consent is specified. For deaf participants, sign language interpretation is named. For populations without dominant-language fluency, translation and back-translation of consent materials is named. Voluntariness and the right to withdraw are reinforced for populations facing power imbalances.
- Score 4: At least three of the population-specific adaptations are present. One adaptation is partial or assumed rather than specified.
- Score 3: Consent processes are named generically. Some adaptations are mentioned (e.g., child assent) but other populations involved are not addressed.
- Score 2: A generic consent statement applies to all populations without adaptation.
- Score 1: No consent adaptations are described.

DIMENSION 3: Trained Personnel
- Score 5: Personnel skills and training requirements are specified for working with each named population. Child safeguarding training is named for staff in contact with minors. Trauma-informed practice training is named for staff working with survivors. Sign language proficiency or interpreter availability is named where relevant. Matched-gender enumerators are specified where cultural or safety reasons require it. Training providers, currency of training, and verification mechanism are named.
- Score 4: At least three of four elements present. Training requirements clear; verification or currency of training partial.
- Score 3: Some training requirements named but unevenly. Verification of completed training is absent. Matched-gender or specialty staffing addressed in some populations but not others.
- Score 2: Generic training reference ("staff will be trained") with no specifics on content, provider, or verification.
- Score 1: No personnel training requirements specified.

DIMENSION 4: Referral Pathways
- Score 5: Referral pathways are named for every category of follow-up the study could surface: GBV disclosure, child protection concerns, suicidality or self-harm, urgent health needs, urgent legal needs. For each, the named receiving service, contact procedure, time-to-handover, and responsible team member are specified. Procedures address what happens when no service exists locally. Confidentiality during referral is addressed.
- Score 4: At least three of the listed follow-up categories have named pathways with named services. One or two are partial.
- Score 3: Referral pathways mentioned but not operationalized. Services not named, or handover responsibilities unclear.
- Score 2: Generic statement that participants will be referred if needed. No services or procedures named.
- Score 1: No referral pathways defined.

DIMENSION 5: Data Protection
- Score 5: Heightened data protection measures are specified for the sensitive populations involved. Stricter access controls (smaller authorized list, separate storage). Identifiers stored separately from response data. Encrypted transmission and storage. Shorter retention timelines with documented destruction. Specific protections against re-identification (suppression of small-cell groupings, redaction of identifying details in quotes, restricted disaggregation). Sensitive disclosure data treated under stricter rules than general data.
- Score 4: At least three of the heightened measures are specified. One is partial or assumed.
- Score 3: Heightened measures referenced but not operationalized. Reuses general data protection language without tailoring to the sensitive populations.
- Score 2: General data protection only. No heightened measures for sensitive populations.
- Score 1: No data protection measures specific to vulnerable populations.

OUTPUT FORMAT:
Return your assessment as a table followed by a summary:

| Dimension | Score (1-5) | Evidence | Priority Revision |
|-----------|-------------|----------|-------------------|
| Population Identification | | | |
| Specialized Consent | | | |
| Trained Personnel | | | |
| Referral Pathways | | | |
| Data Protection | | | |

**Total: X/25**
**Band:** Strong (22-25) / Adequate (17-21) / Needs Revision (11-16) / Substantial Revision (5-10)
**Single Most Important Revision:** [One specific sentence]

For any dimension scored 1 or 2, add a brief explanation and a concrete revision example specific to the populations involved.

PROTECTIONS SECTION TO SCORE:
[Paste your vulnerable-population protections section here]

Scoring Criteria

Population Identification
5Excellent

Every vulnerable population named specifically with distinct risk profile. No generic "vulnerable" label.

4Good

At least 80 percent named with risks. One or two grouped generically.

3Adequate

Some named, others under generic header. Risk profiles uneven.

2Needs Improvement

Vulnerable populations referenced as a category without specifying.

1Inadequate

No identification of which populations or why vulnerable.

Specialized Consent
5Excellent

Consent adapted for each population: parental plus child assent, low-literacy, sign language, translation, voluntariness reinforced.

4Good

At least three adaptations present. One partial or assumed.

3Adequate

Generic consent with some adaptations mentioned. Other populations not addressed.

2Needs Improvement

Generic consent statement applies to all without adaptation.

1Inadequate

No consent adaptations described.

Trained Personnel
5Excellent

Training requirements specified per role: safeguarding, trauma-informed, sign language, matched-gender. Providers, currency, verification named.

4Good

At least three of four elements. Training clear; verification or currency partial.

3Adequate

Some training named unevenly. Verification absent. Specialty staffing inconsistent.

2Needs Improvement

Generic training reference, no specifics.

1Inadequate

No personnel training requirements specified.

Referral Pathways
5Excellent

Pathways named for every follow-up category (GBV, child protection, suicidality, health, legal). Service, contact, time-to-handover, responsibility named. Confidentiality and absent-service cases addressed.

4Good

At least three categories have named pathways with services. One or two partial.

3Adequate

Referral pathways mentioned but not operationalized. Services not named, handover unclear.

2Needs Improvement

Generic statement that participants will be referred. No services or procedures named.

1Inadequate

No referral pathways defined.

Data Protection
5Excellent

Heightened measures: stricter access, separated identifiers, encrypted transmission/storage, shorter retention, re-identification safeguards, sensitive disclosure stricter rules.

4Good

At least three heightened measures. One partial or assumed.

3Adequate

Heightened measures referenced but not operationalized. Reuses general language.

2Needs Improvement

General data protection only. No heightening for sensitive populations.

1Inadequate

No data protection specific to vulnerable populations.

Score Interpretation

Total (out of 25)BandNext Step
22-25StrongProtections are robust and operational. Approve with minor refinements.
17-21AdequateAddress flagged dimensions before fielding. Most likely fix: operationalize referral pathways with named services and add training verification.
11-16Needs RevisionSubstantial revision required. Use Revise prompt before any participant contact.
5-10Substantial RevisionProtections fail the threshold for work with vulnerable populations. Rebuild starting from population identification and referral pathways.