A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs.

Q1 Arts and Humanities AJOB Empirical Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-02-23 DOI:10.1080/23294515.2023.2180107
Stuart G Nicholls, Holly A Taylor, Richard James, Emily E Anderson, Phoebe Friesen, Toby Schonfeld, Elyse I Summers
{"title":"A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs.","authors":"Stuart G Nicholls, Holly A Taylor, Richard James, Emily E Anderson, Phoebe Friesen, Toby Schonfeld, Elyse I Summers","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2023.2180107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"14 3","pages":"174-184"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10444906/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2023.2180107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/2/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs.

Methods: We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

Results: 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials.

Conclusions: Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
IRB无关联和非科学家成员的招聘实践、支持和感知角色的横断面调查。
背景:联邦政府授权机构审查委员会(IRB)在其成员中包括非科学代表和无关联代表。尽管如此,没有关于选择无关联或非科学家成员的指导或政策,报告表明,成员的角色缺乏明确性。在本研究中,我们试图探索IRB中无关联和非科学家成员的招聘、培训过程以及感知角色。方法:我们对熟悉IRB成员招募的人类研究保护计划认证协会成员进行了一项自我管理的REDCap调查。该调查包括关于以下方面的封闭式和开放式问题:HRPP/IRB的运作,如何招募无关联和非科学家成员,他们是否在招聘这些职位时面临挑战,以及提供的培训和指导。该调查还收集了关于无关联和非科学家成员的感知价值和角色的信息。结果:分析中包括76个回答(完成率38%)。最常见的招聘方法是由现任IRB成员推荐,近一半的受访者表示招聘无关联成员存在挑战。超过75%的人表示,与附属成员或科学家成员相比,没有向非附属成员或非科学家成员提供额外培训。提供的最常见支助是差旅费/停车费和酬金。通常认为的角色是从参与者的角度提供独立的声音,特别是在同意过程和材料方面。结论:受访者表示,在定义无关联和非科学家成员方面存在挑战,在招募和支持方面的做法有限。未来的工作应该更仔细地研究在定义这些角色和在实践中应用这些定义方面的挑战,以及可能改善无关联和非科学家成员的招聘和保留的战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Enhancing Animals is "Still Genetics": Perspectives of Genome Scientists and Policymakers on Animal and Human Enhancement. Associations Between the Legalization and Implementation of Medical Aid in Dying and Suicide Rates in the United States. Ethics Consultation in U.S. Pediatric Hospitals: Adherence to National Practice Standards. Monitored and Cared for at Home? Privacy Concerns When Using Smart Home Health Technologies to Care for Older Persons. Advance Medical Decision-Making Differs Across First- and Third-Person Perspectives.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1