Comment on the Proposed Institutional Review Board Retrospective Review of Research

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Min-Fu Tsan
Keyword(s):  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Common

Investigators of nonexempt human subjects research conducted without prior institutional review board (IRB) approval often have difficulties in publishing data obtained from such research. Retrospective review and approval of such research has been suggested as a potential pathway for an IRB to help these investigators to publish those data. However, under the Common Rule, an IRB has no authority to retrospectively review and approve human subjects research. Prevention remains the best strategy to ensure that no nonexempt human subjects research is initiated prior to IRB approval.

scholarly journals Is Safety in the Eye of the Beholder? Safeguards in Research With Adults With Intellectual Disability

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 424-438 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine E. McDonald ◽  
Nicole E. Conroy ◽  
Carolyn I. Kim ◽  
Emily J. LoBraico ◽  
Ellis M. Prather ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Disability Service ◽  
Disability Service Providers ◽  
Institutional Review

Human subjects research has a core commitment to participant well-being. This obligation is accentuated for once exploited populations such as adults with intellectual disability. Yet we know little about the public’s views on appropriate safeguards for this population. We surveyed adults with intellectual disability, family members and friends, disability service providers, researchers, and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members to compare views on safeguards. We found many points of convergence of views, particularly for decision-making and participation. One trend is that adults with intellectual disability perceive greater safety in being engaged directly in recruitment, and recruitment by specific individuals. Researchers and IRB members need to consider community views to facilitate the safe and respectful inclusion of adults with intellectual disability.

Learning Health Systems and the Revised Common Rule

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 238-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua A. Rolnick
Keyword(s):  
Public Policy ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Health Systems ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Minimal Risk ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Quality Improvement Process ◽  
Improvement Process ◽  
The Common

Quality improvement (QI) is an important function of learning health systems, and public policy should promote QI activities. Use of systematic methodologies in QI has prompted substantial confusion regarding when QI is human subjects research under the Common Rule, and this confusion persists with the revised Rule. Difficulty distinguishing research from QI imposes costs on the quality improvement process. I offer guidance to IRBs to mitigate these costs and suggest a new regulatory exclusion for minimal risk quality improvement activities.

A Policy in Flux: New York State's Evolving Approach to Human Subjects Research Involving Individuals Who Lack Consent Capacity

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (3) ◽  
pp. 383-388
Author(s):  
Valerie Gutmann Koch
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Cognitively Impaired ◽  
Conservative Approach ◽  
Important Research ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Voluntary Informed Consent ◽  
Conducting Research

Despite existing federal and state law and regulation, new human subjects research (HSR) scandals involving “vulnerable” populations continue to surface. Although existing oversight mechanisms were enacted to ensure voluntary informed consent for participants and institutional review board (IRB) oversight of HSR, these laws and regulations do not provide any special oversight mechanisms or protections to ensure the ethical and safe inclusion of cognitively impaired adults. The absence of rules to ensure consistently ethical conduct of research involving adults who lack consent capacity may either lead to exploitation of this vulnerable population or the dearth of important research into the broad range of diseases that impair cognition. In other words, while some institutions and investigators are conducting research with this group without guidance, others are taking an extremely conservative approach and are excluding these individuals from research. Without safeguards that are adequate and robust but not overly burdensome, conducting research involving this population is ethically and legally challenging.

Currents in Contemporary Ethics

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 154-159 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A. Rothstein
Keyword(s):  
Privacy Protection ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Institutional Review Boards ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Privacy Rule ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Common ◽  
Protection Of Human Subjects ◽  
Privacy Issues

For nearly twenty-five years, federal regulation of privacy issues in research involving human subjects was the primary province of the federal rule for Protection of Human Subjects (Common Rule). As of April 14, 2003, the compliance date for the Privacy Rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), however, the Common Rule and the Privacy Rule jointly regulate research privacy. Although, in theory, the Privacy Rule is intended to complement the Common Rule, there are several areas in which the rules diverge. In some instances the inconsistencies result in gaps in privacy protection; in other instances the inconsistencies result in added burdens on researchers without additional privacy protections. In all instances, the lack of harmonization of these rules has created confusion, frustration, and misunderstanding by researchers, research subjects, and institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, I review the major provisions of the Privacy Rule for research, explain the areas in which the Privacy Rule and Common Rule differ, and conclude that the two rules should be revised to promote consistency and maximize privacy protections while minimizing the burdens on research.

scholarly journals Biobanking, Consent, and Certificates of Confidentiality: Does the ANPRM Muddy the Water?

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 440-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brett A. Williams ◽  
Leslie E. Wolf
Keyword(s):  
Human Services ◽  
Human Subjects ◽  
Regulatory System ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Human Subjects Research ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Initial Interaction ◽  
Research Protections ◽  
The Common

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has proposed substantial changes to the current regulatory system governing human subjects research in its Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM), entitled “Human Subjects Research Protections: Enhancing Protections for Research Subjects and Reducing Burden, Delay, and Ambiguity for Investigators.” Some of the most significant proposed changes concern the use of biospecimens in research. Because research involving biological materials begins with an initial interaction with an individual, such research falls squarely within the human subjects research regulatory framework known as the “Common Rule,” which applies to research conducted or funded by the HHS and the other signatory agencies and departments. However, as described in detail below, much biospecimen research may fall within exemptions and exceptions under the Common Rule and, thus, may be conducted without consent. The ANPRM proposes requiring written consent for research use of biospecimens, even if the biospecimens were initially collected for a purpose other than research or have been stripped of identifiers.

Outsourcing Ethical Obligations: Should the Revised Common Rule Address the Responsibilities of Investigators and Sponsors?

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 397-410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Seema K. Shah
Keyword(s):  
Research Team ◽  
Antiretroviral Treatment ◽  
Hiv Transmission ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
National Program ◽  
Common Rule ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Common ◽  
Ethical Obligations

Imagine a study in which HIV-infected pregnant women are given antiretroviral treatment (ART) to determine how effectively it will prevent HIV transmission during childbirth. Each mother’s involvement in this study ends with the birth of her child, at which time her access to antiretrovirals provided by the study also ceases. At the outset of the study, the investigator and sponsor agree that after the child’s birth, they will refer mothers who require treatment for their HIV to a national program that provides antiretroviral treatment and care. Assuming the Institutional Review Board (IRB) raises no objections to this plan, should the research team consider their ethical obligations to participants fulfilled? If the investigator and sponsor were to consult the Common Rule, they would find little to suggest that there are any further ethical issues to address.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document