Engaging key stakeholders to overcome barriers to studying the quality of research ethics oversight

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2022-11-18 DOI:10.1177/17470161221138028
E. Anderson, Elisa A. Hurley, Kimberley Serpico, Ann R. Johnson, Jessica Rowe, Megan Singleton, Barbara E. Bierer, Brooke Cholka, S. Chaudhari, Holly Fernandez Lynch
{"title":"Engaging key stakeholders to overcome barriers to studying the quality of research ethics oversight","authors":"E. Anderson, Elisa A. Hurley, Kimberley Serpico, Ann R. Johnson, Jessica Rowe, Megan Singleton, Barbara E. Bierer, Brooke Cholka, S. Chaudhari, Holly Fernandez Lynch","doi":"10.1177/17470161221138028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The primary purpose of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants. Evaluation and measurement of how IRBs satisfy this purpose and other important goals are open questions that demand empirical research. Research on IRBs, and the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) of which they are often a part, is necessary to inform evidence-based practices, policies, and approaches to quality improvement in human research protections. However, to date, HRPP and IRB engagement in empirical research about their own activities and performance has been limited. To promote engagement of HRPPs and IRBs in self-reflective research on HRPP and IRB quality and effectiveness, barriers to their participation need to be addressed. These include: extensive workloads, limited information technology systems, and few universally accepted or consistently measured metrics for HRPP/IRB quality and effectiveness. Additionally, institutional leaders may have concerns about confidentiality. Professional norms around the value of participating in this type of research are lacking. Lastly, obtaining external funding for research on IRBs and HRPPs is challenging. As a group of HRPP professionals and researchers actively involved in a research consortium focused on IRB quality and effectiveness, we identify potential levers for supporting and encouraging HRPP and IRB engagement in research on quality and effectiveness. We maintain that this research should be informed by the core principles of patient- and community-engaged research, in which members and key stakeholders of the community to be studied are included as key informants and members of the research team. This ensures that relevant questions are asked and that data are interpreted to produce meaningful recommendations. As such, we offer several ways to increase the participation of HRPP professionals in research as participants, as data sharers, and as investigators.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"30 1","pages":"62 - 77"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161221138028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

The primary purpose of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is to protect the rights and welfare of human research participants. Evaluation and measurement of how IRBs satisfy this purpose and other important goals are open questions that demand empirical research. Research on IRBs, and the Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) of which they are often a part, is necessary to inform evidence-based practices, policies, and approaches to quality improvement in human research protections. However, to date, HRPP and IRB engagement in empirical research about their own activities and performance has been limited. To promote engagement of HRPPs and IRBs in self-reflective research on HRPP and IRB quality and effectiveness, barriers to their participation need to be addressed. These include: extensive workloads, limited information technology systems, and few universally accepted or consistently measured metrics for HRPP/IRB quality and effectiveness. Additionally, institutional leaders may have concerns about confidentiality. Professional norms around the value of participating in this type of research are lacking. Lastly, obtaining external funding for research on IRBs and HRPPs is challenging. As a group of HRPP professionals and researchers actively involved in a research consortium focused on IRB quality and effectiveness, we identify potential levers for supporting and encouraging HRPP and IRB engagement in research on quality and effectiveness. We maintain that this research should be informed by the core principles of patient- and community-engaged research, in which members and key stakeholders of the community to be studied are included as key informants and members of the research team. This ensures that relevant questions are asked and that data are interpreted to produce meaningful recommendations. As such, we offer several ways to increase the participation of HRPP professionals in research as participants, as data sharers, and as investigators.
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
与主要利益相关者合作,克服研究伦理监督质量方面的障碍
机构审查委员会(irb)的主要目的是保护人类研究参与者的权利和福利。评估和测量irb如何满足这一目的和其他重要目标是需要实证研究的开放问题。对irb和人类研究保护计划(HRPPs)的研究是必要的,可以为基于证据的实践、政策和方法提供信息,以提高人类研究保护的质量。然而,迄今为止,HRPP和IRB对其自身活动和绩效的实证研究仍然有限。为了促进HRPP和IRB参与关于HRPP和IRB质量和有效性的自我反思研究,需要解决阻碍他们参与的障碍。这些问题包括:大量的工作量,有限的信息技术系统,以及很少普遍接受或一致测量HRPP/IRB质量和有效性的度量标准。此外,机构领导人可能会担心保密问题。缺乏关于参与这类研究的价值的专业规范。最后,为irb和hrpp的研究获得外部资金是具有挑战性的。作为一群HRPP专业人员和研究人员积极参与一个研究联盟,专注于IRB的质量和有效性,我们确定了支持和鼓励HRPP和IRB参与质量和有效性研究的潜在杠杆。我们认为,这项研究应遵循患者和社区参与研究的核心原则,其中包括被研究社区的成员和主要利益相关者,作为关键线人和研究团队的成员。这可以确保提出相关的问题,并解释数据以产生有意义的建议。因此,我们提供了几种方法来增加HRPP专业人员作为参与者、数据共享者和调查人员参与研究。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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