S Danielle MacNeil1, Conrad V Fernandez. 1. Department of Surgery, Division of Otolaryngology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The offer of aggregate study results to research participants following study completion is increasingly accepted as a means of demonstrating greater respect for participants. The attitudes of research ethics board (REB) chairs towards this practice, although integral to policy development, are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitudes of REB chairs and the practices of REBs with respect to disclosure of results to research participants. DESIGN: A postal questionnaire was distributed to the chairs of English-language university-based REBs in Canada. In total, 88 REB chairs were eligible. The questionnaire examined respondents' attitudes towards offering participants completed study results, methods for delivering this information, and barriers to disclosing results. FINDINGS: The response rate was 89.8%. Chairs were highly supportive (94.8%) of offering results to research participants. Only 19.5% of chairs responded that a policy or guideline that governed the return of research results to participants existed at their institution. Most chairs (72.0%) supported the idea of their REB instituting a set of guidelines recommending that researchers offer results to participants in a lay format. Chairs identified the major impediments to the implementation of programmes offering to return results to participants as being financial cost (57.5%) and retaining contact with research participants (78.1%). CONCLUSIONS: University-based REB chairs overwhelmingly support the offer of research results to participants. This is incongruent with the frequent lack of existing REB guidelines recommending this practice. REBs should support guidelines that diminish identified barriers and promote consistency in offering to return results.
BACKGROUND: The offer of aggregate study results to research participants following study completion is increasingly accepted as a means of demonstrating greater respect for participants. The attitudes of research ethics board (REB) chairs towards this practice, although integral to policy development, are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To determine the attitudes of REB chairs and the practices of REBs with respect to disclosure of results to research participants. DESIGN: A postal questionnaire was distributed to the chairs of English-language university-based REBs in Canada. In total, 88 REB chairs were eligible. The questionnaire examined respondents' attitudes towards offering participants completed study results, methods for delivering this information, and barriers to disclosing results. FINDINGS: The response rate was 89.8%. Chairs were highly supportive (94.8%) of offering results to research participants. Only 19.5% of chairs responded that a policy or guideline that governed the return of research results to participants existed at their institution. Most chairs (72.0%) supported the idea of their REB instituting a set of guidelines recommending that researchers offer results to participants in a lay format. Chairs identified the major impediments to the implementation of programmes offering to return results to participants as being financial cost (57.5%) and retaining contact with research participants (78.1%). CONCLUSIONS: University-based REB chairs overwhelmingly support the offer of research results to participants. This is incongruent with the frequent lack of existing REB guidelines recommending this practice. REBs should support guidelines that diminish identified barriers and promote consistency in offering to return results.
Authors: Richard R Fabsitz; Amy McGuire; Richard R Sharp; Mona Puggal; Laura M Beskow; Leslie G Biesecker; Ebony Bookman; Wylie Burke; Esteban Gonzalez Burchard; George Church; Ellen Wright Clayton; John H Eckfeldt; Conrad V Fernandez; Rebecca Fisher; Stephanie M Fullerton; Stacey Gabriel; Francine Gachupin; Cynthia James; Gail P Jarvik; Rick Kittles; Jennifer R Leib; Christopher O'Donnell; P Pearl O'Rourke; Laura Lyman Rodriguez; Sheri D Schully; Alan R Shuldiner; Rebecca K F Sze; Joseph V Thakuria; Susan M Wolf; Gregory L Burke Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Genet Date: 2010-12
Authors: Hasnain Dalal; Jennifer Wingham; Colin Pritchard; Sharon Northey; Philip Evans; Rod S Taylor; John Campbell Journal: Health Expect Date: 2009-11-10 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: José A Sacristán; Alfonso Aguarón; Cristina Avendaño-Solá; Pilar Garrido; Juan Carrión; Alipio Gutiérrez; Robert Kroes; Angeles Flores Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2016-04-27 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Pearl A McElfish; Christopher R Long; Laura P James; Aaron J Scott; Elizabeth Flood-Grady; Kim S Kimminau; Robert L Rhyne; Mark R Burge; Rachel S Purvis Journal: J Clin Transl Sci Date: 2019-10-04