Literature DB >> 19385877

U. S. Health Researchers Review their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study.

Scott Burris1, Kathryn Moss.   

Abstract

VIRTUALLY ALL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN subjects in the United States must be reviewed by an institutional review board, a form of research ethics review board. This article reports the results of qualitative research on how investigators regard this regulatory regime. Interviews were conducted with forty investigators conducting health-related research. Most respondents shared the regulations' goals, but doubted that the regulations, as implemented, promoted these goals efficiently, effectively and fairly. The interviews suggest that efforts to raise researchers' ethical consciousness have been, over time, quite successful, but that implementation of the regulations remains problematic. Research aimed at better defining the problem to be solved b y the r egulatory sy stem, and at a ssessing the effectiveness of the regulatory tools for solving properly defined problems, could guide a more productive debate about human subject protection.

Entities:  

Year:  2006        PMID: 19385877     DOI: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.2.39

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  15 in total

1.  Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.

Authors:  Hanna Ezzat; Sue Ross; Peter von Dadelszen; Tara Morris; Robert Liston; Laura A Magee
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers.

Authors:  K L Edwards; A A Lemke; S B Trinidad; S M Lewis; H Starks; M T Quinn Griffin; G L Wiesner
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-04-11       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  A Study of Assessing Errors and Completeness of Research Application Forms Submitted to Instituitional Ethics Committee (IEC) of a Tertiary Care Hospital.

Authors:  Pruthak C Shah; Ashwin K Panchasara; Manish J Barvaliya; C B Tripathi
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-09-01

Review 4.  Reviewing HIV-Related Research in Emerging Economies: The Role of Government Reviewing Agencies.

Authors:  Patrina Sexton; Katrina Hui; Donna Hanrahan; Mark Barnes; Jeremy Sugarman; Alex John London; Robert Klitzman
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2014-11-10       Impact factor: 2.294

5.  Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards.

Authors:  Juliana C Cartwright; Susan E Hickman; Christine A Nelson; Kathleen A Knafl
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 2.228

6.  A study to assess completeness of project application forms submitted to Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC) of a tertiary care hospital.

Authors:  Yashashri C Shetty; Padmaja A Marathe; Gauri V Billa; C P Neelima Nambiar
Journal:  Perspect Clin Res       Date:  2012-10

7.  Informed consent for MRI and fMRI research: analysis of a sample of Canadian consent documents.

Authors:  Nicole Palmour; William Affleck; Emily Bell; Constance Deslauriers; Bruce Pike; Julien Doyon; Eric Racine
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 2.652

8.  The ethics police?: IRBs' views concerning their power.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-12-13       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  Principal investigator views of the IRB system.

Authors:  Simon N Whitney; Kirsten Alcser; Carl Schneider; Laurence B McCullough; Amy L McGuire; Robert J Volk
Journal:  Int J Med Sci       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 3.738

10.  How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review.

Authors:  Carl H Coleman; Marie-Charlotte Bouësseau
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2008-03-28       Impact factor: 2.652

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.