Literature DB >> 17470508

Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees.

C A Schuppli1, D Fraser.   

Abstract

Research ethics committees - animal ethics committees (AECs) for animal-based research and institutional research boards (IRBs) for human subjects - have a key role in research governance, but there has been little study of the factors influencing their effectiveness. The objectives of this study were to examine how the effectiveness of a research ethics committee is influenced by committee composition and dynamics, recruitment of members, workload, participation level and member turnover. As a model, 28 members of AECs at four universities in western Canada were interviewed. Committees were selected to represent variation in the number and type of protocols reviewed, and participants were selected to include different types of committee members. We found that a bias towards institutional or scientific interests may result from (1) a preponderance of institutional and scientist members, (2) an intimidating atmosphere for community members and other minority members, (3) recruitment of community members who are affiliated with the institution and (4) members joining for reasons other than to fulfil the committee mandate. Thoroughness of protocol review may be influenced by heavy workloads, type of review process and lack of full committee participation. These results, together with results from the literature on research ethics committees, suggested potential ways to improve the effectiveness of research ethics committees.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17470508      PMCID: PMC2598114          DOI: 10.1136/jme.2005.015057

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  14 in total

1.  Animals, science, and ethics -- Section IV. Ethical review and the animal care and use committee.

Authors:  Andrew N Rowan
Journal:  Hastings Cent Rep       Date:  1990 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.683

2.  Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership.

Authors:  Raymond De Vries; Carl P Forsberg
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2002-09

3.  A few simple truths about your community IRB members.

Authors:  P E Bauer
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2001 Jan-Feb

4.  A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement.

Authors:  M DEUTSCH; H B GERARD
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  1955-11

5.  Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees.

Authors:  Sarah Dyer
Journal:  Health Place       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 4.078

6.  Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees: a survey covering 10 years of experience.

Authors:  G Borkowski; A Hunter; K Field; W M Sischo
Journal:  Contemp Top Lab Anim Sci       Date:  1997-09

7.  Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, conformity and group polarization.

Authors:  D Abrams; M Wetherell; S Cochrane; M A Hogg; J C Turner
Journal:  Br J Soc Psychol       Date:  1990-06

8.  Structure and practice of institutional review boards in the United States.

Authors:  J S Jones; L J White; L C Pool; J M Dougherty
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  1996-08       Impact factor: 3.451

9.  Institutional animal care and use committees: a new set of clothes for the emperor?

Authors:  L Finsen
Journal:  J Med Philos       Date:  1988-05

10.  Auditing a research ethics committee.

Authors:  J B Cookson
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1992-04
View more
  26 in total

1.  Towards a balanced approach to identifying conflicts of interest faced by institutional review boards.

Authors:  Sharon Kaur; Sujata Balan
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2015-10

2.  Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Louise Maranda
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2017-06-29       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Lorna J Simon; Antonia V Seligowski; Suzanne Myers; William Gardner; Philip J Candilis; Robert Arnold; Paul S Appelbaum
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 1.742

4.  Evaluating IACUCs: Previous Research and Future Directions.

Authors:  Madeline L Budda; Stacy L Pritt
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 1.232

5.  Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight.

Authors:  Danielle M Wenner
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2016-09

6.  Identifying structures, processes, resources and needs of research ethics committees in Egypt.

Authors:  Hany Sleem; Samer S El-Kamary; Henry J Silverman
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2010-06-28       Impact factor: 2.652

7.  Perspectives of Egyptian research ethics committees regarding their effective functioning.

Authors:  Amal Matar; Henry Silverman
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.742

8.  Vulnerable subjects? The case of nonhuman animals in experimentation.

Authors:  Jane Johnson
Journal:  J Bioeth Inq       Date:  2013-10-03       Impact factor: 1.352

9.  Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.

Authors:  Jerald Silverman; Charles W Lidz; Jonathan C Clayfield; Alexandra Murray; Lorna J Simon; Richard G Rondeau
Journal:  J Am Assoc Lab Anim Sci       Date:  2015-07       Impact factor: 1.232

10.  A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India.

Authors:  Tiffany Chenneville; Lynette Menezes; Jayendrakumar Kosambiya; Rajendra Baxi
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2016-07-31       Impact factor: 1.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.