Confidence of IRB/REC Members in Their Assessments of Human Research Risk: A Study of IRB/REC Decision Making in Action

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 140-149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frederick Grinnell ◽  
John Z. Sadler ◽  
Victoria McNamara ◽  
Kristen Senetar ◽  
Joan Reisch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Environmental Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Regulatory Oversight ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Risk Benefit Assessment

Understanding how institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRBs/RECs) perform risk/benefit assessment is important to help improve their function. In environmental ethics, uncertainty about potential outcomes and the precautionary principle play important roles in regulatory oversight but have received little attention in the context of human research ethics. We carried out an empirical study to gain insight into uncertainty by asking IRB/REC members about confidence in their risk assessments immediately after discussion of new protocols under review. Based on 12 meetings carried out by four IRBs/RECs over a 6-month period, we found a robust, inverse relationship between risk and confidence. As risk increased, confidence decreased. We detected different patterns of consensus between different IRBs/RECs and their members. Our study introduces a novel and relatively easy to implement approach to begin to understand IRB/REC decision making in real time that can be used within or across institutions.

Differences between research ethics committees

2007 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah J. L. Edwards ◽  
Tracey Stone ◽  
Teresa Swift
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Considerations ◽  
Local Conditions ◽  
Ethical Judgments ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review

Objectives:To examine differences in the ethical judgments made by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).Methods:We did a review of the literature and included any study that attempted to compare the ethical judgments made by different RECs or IRBs when reviewing one or more protocol.Results:There were twenty-six articles reporting such discrepancies across Europe, within the United Kingdom, Spain, and United States. Of these studies, there were only five reports of some RECs approving while others rejecting the same protocol. All studies, however, reported differences in the clarifications and revisions asked of researchers regarding consent, recruitment, risks and benefits, compensation arrangements, and scientific issues.Conclusions:The studies were generally anecdotal reports of researchers trying to do research. New rules requiring a single ethical opinion for multi-site research at least in European Member States may simply conceal problematic issues in REC decision making. In the last analysis, we should expect a certain degree of variation and differences if we are to keep a committee system of review, although there is a pressing need to investigate the way in which RECs make these judgments. In particular, we need to identify the source of any aberrations, distortions, or confusions that could arbitrarily affect these judgments. Furthermore, local conditions remain important ethical considerations and should not be sidelined in pursuit of greater “consistency.”

Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Handal ◽  
Chris Campbell ◽  
Kevin Watson ◽  
Marguerite Maher ◽  
Keagan Brewer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Personal Perceptions

scholarly journals Heterogeneity of Human Research Ethics Committees and Research Governance Offices across Australia: An observational study

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elisabeth De Smit ◽  
Lisa Kearns ◽  
Linda Clarke ◽  
Jonathan Dick ◽  
Catharine Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Observational Study ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Governance ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics

scholarly journals Could providing financial incentives to research participants be ultimately self-defeating?

2016 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 137-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
TL Zutlevics
Keyword(s):  
Intrinsic Motivation ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Financial Incentive ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Guidelines ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Individual

Controversy over providing financial incentives to research participants has a long history and remains an issue of contention in both current discussions about research ethics and for institutional review bodies/human research ethics committees which are charged with the responsibility of deciding whether such incentives fall within ethical guidelines. The arguments both for and against financial incentives have been well aired in the literature. A point of agreement for many is that inducement in the form of financial incentive is permissible when the risk of harm to the individual is negligible in terms of degree and probability of occurrence. In the absence of harm to the individual, encouraging more people to participate in research would appear to be a good thing in so far as it will lead to statistically more robust research outcomes, which can then be translated into better healthcare and other practice. Whilst, on the face of it, this position seems highly defensible, I will explore the possibility that it is counterproductive – that is, providing individuals with financial incentives to become research participants may have the unintended outcome of reducing participation rates in some areas of research. In exploring this idea I will draw on empirical findings from the literature on crowding-out – the hypothesis that providing monetary incentives to people can backfire by overall reducing intrinsic motivation, in this instance intrinsic motivation to behave altruistically or undertake civic duties.

Overall Assessment of Human Research and Ethics Committees in the United Arab Emirates

2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mahera Abdulrahman ◽  
Satish Chandrasekhar Nair
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
United Arab Emirates ◽  
Research Output ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Event Reporting ◽  
Mentoring Program ◽  
Continuous Training ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics

Growing demand for human health research in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has prompted the need to develop a robust research ethics oversight. Examination of the structure, function, and practices of the human research ethics committees (HRECs), followed by evaluation of standards for measuring research output, was conducted. Results indicate that among the HRECs, 90% followed International Council for Harmonization–Good Clinical Practice guidelines, 66.6% have been in operation for more than 5 years, 95% reviewed proposals within 8 weeks, and 56% reviewed for scientific merit apart from ethics. However, systems to recognize accomplishments of researchers, funding transparency, and adverse event reporting were deployed in less than 30% of all HRECs. Research was incorporated into the vision and mission statements of many (65%) organizations. Research publications, collaborations, and recognitions were used to measure research output and report key performance indicators. In spite, resources to generate research output such as dedicated budget (20%), support staff (20%), and continuous training and mentoring program for medical residents (15%) and HREC members (25%) were somehow lacking. HREC structure and operations in the UAE are similar to other regions of the world. Systems to conduct research and report outcomes are defined in the UAE. Regulatory legislation and allocation of resources to support the clinical research enterprise will not only help to meet growing demand for clinical trials but also transform the quality of patient care in the UAE. It is anticipated that the results of this study will benefit investigators, regulators, pharmaceutical sponsors, and the policy makers in the region.

scholarly journals Negotiating Responsibility for Navigating Ethical Issues in Qualitative Research: A Review of Miller, Birch, Mauthner, and Jessop’s (2012) Ethics in Qualitative Research, Second Edition

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle McCarron
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Technological Advances ◽  
Research Ethics Boards

Ethics in Qualitative Research (Miller, Birch Mauthner, & Jessop, 2012), now in its second edition, uses a feminist framework to present a variety of issues pertinent to qualitative researchers. Topics include traditional challenges for qualitative researchers (e.g., access to potential participants, informed consent, overlapping roles), as well as those that have garnered more attention in recent years, particularly with regard to uses and consequences of technological advances in research. The book is critical of committees whose function it is to review proposed research and grant research ethics approval (e.g., University Research Ethics Committees [URECs], Research Ethics Boards [REBs], and Institutional Review Boards [IRBs]). The authors of this book are situated within the United Kingdom. The editors take the position that ethics oversight by the researchers themselves is preferable and that such boards and committees are not well equipped to review qualitative research. A rebuttal to this position is presented within this review. Ethics in Qualitative Research provides a good overview of ethical issues that researchers face and is effective in merging theory with practice. It would be strengthened by avoiding the debate over URECs or by offering concrete suggestions for how URECs can improve their reviews of qualitative research.

In defence of a broad approach to public interest in health data research

2020 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-106880
Author(s):  
Angela Ballantyne ◽  
G Owen Schaefer
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Conceptual Understanding ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Health Data ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Privacy Act ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Broad Approach

In their response to ‘Public interest in health data research: laying out the conceptual groundwork’, Grewal and Newson critique us for inattention to the law and putting forward an impracticably broad conceptual understanding of public interest. While we agree more work is needed to generate a workable framework for Institutional Review Boards/Research Ethics Committees (IRBs/RECs), we would contend that this should be grounded on a broad conception of public interest. This broadness facilitates regulatory agility, and is already reflected by some current frameworks such as that found in the guidelines approved under Australia’s Privacy Act. It remains unclear which elements of our broad account Grewal and Newson would reject, or indeed where the substantive disagreement with our position lies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document