Which approach would be most beneficial if a subject's disclosure in a study could be harmful?

The approach that would be most beneficial if a subject's disclosure in a study could be harmful is to obtain a waiver of documentation of informed consent. This option allows researchers to minimize the risk of harm to participants by not requiring them to sign a consent form that could potentially identify them or link them to the study. This is particularly important in studies where sensitive information is being collected, as a signed document could be a risk if disclosed.

A waiver of documentation means that subjects can still provide consent verbally or through implied means, thus maintaining their confidentiality and reducing the likelihood of any potential harm from their participation. This is critical in research involving sensitive topics, where subjects may fear repercussions from admitting their participation or discussing personal experiences.

In comparison, conducting the study anonymously provides some degree of protection but may not be sufficient if there are other identifiable elements that could compromise participants' confidentiality. Providing a detailed informed consent process, while important for ethical transparency and ensuring that participants understand the study, may inadvertently increase the risk of disclosing their participation through signed records. Using biometric identifiers instead of names still involves personal data and does not fully eliminate the risk of harm associated with the linked identification.

Overall, a waiver of documentation effectively addresses the concerns regarding potential harm by not requiring any form of