Literature DB >> 22622206

Institutional review board community members: who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent?

Robert Klitzman1.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The roles of nonaffiliated and nonscientific institutional review board (IRB) members at academic medical centers have received some attention, but questions remain-Who are they, what do they do, and whom, if anyone, do they represent?
METHOD: The author interviewed 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators, and members in 2007-2009. He contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health funding), interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions, then recruited 7 additional members from these IRBs to interview.
RESULTS: Regular IRB members often called these individuals community members and were confused as to who these members were, or should be, and whether they did, or should, represent anyone and, if so, whom. IRBs encountered challenges in finding, training, and retaining these community members. Tensions emerged because nonscientific members, by definition, have no scientific training, so they have difficulty understanding key aspects of protocols, making them feel unempowered to contribute to reviews. IRBs varied in how much they encouraged these members to participate, in what ways, and with what success.
CONCLUSIONS: At academic medical centers, IRBs struggled with how to view, choose, employ, and retain nonaffiliated and nonscientific members, and they varied widely in these regards. Some IRBs had these members review entire protocols, others only limited parts (particularly reading consent forms for comprehension), pro forma. Yet, at times, these members' input proved very important. These findings have critical implications for policy, practice, and research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22622206      PMCID: PMC3549463          DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182578b54

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Med        ISSN: 1040-2446            Impact factor:   6.893


  15 in total

1.  Two deaths and two lessons: is it time to review the structure and function of research ethics committees?

Authors:  J Savulescu
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  How unaffiliated/nonscientist members of institutional review boards see their roles.

Authors:  Joan P Porter
Journal:  IRB       Date:  1987 Nov-Dec

3.  Nonfinancial conflicts of interest in research.

Authors:  Norman G Levinsky
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-09-05       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson
Journal:  Account Res       Date:  2006 Apr-Jun       Impact factor: 2.622

5.  Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry.

Authors:  Eric G Campbell; Joel S Weissman; Christine Vogeli; Brian R Clarridge; Melissa Abraham; Jessica E Marder; Greg Koski
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2006-11-30       Impact factor: 91.245

6.  Ethical attitudes of nurse, physician, and unaffiliated members of institutional review boards.

Authors:  William G Rothstein; Linh H Phuong
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.176

7.  Views and experiences of IRBs concerning research integrity.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  US IRBs confronting research in the developing world.

Authors:  Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  Dev World Bioeth       Date:  2012-04-20       Impact factor: 2.294

9.  Nonscientist IRB members at the NIH.

Authors:  Robert D Allison; Lura J Abbott; Alison Wichman
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2008 Sep-Oct

10.  How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2011-06-23       Impact factor: 2.652

View more
  27 in total

1.  Establishing Consumer Protections for Research in Human Service Agencies.

Authors:  Linda A LeBlanc; Melissa R Nosik; Anna Petursdottir
Journal:  Behav Anal Pract       Date:  2018-04-12

2.  Perceptions and experiences of community members serving on institutional review boards: a questionnaire based study.

Authors:  M S Kuyare; Padmaja A Marathe; S S Kuyare; U M Thatte
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2015-03

3.  Meaningfully Engaging Patients in ACO Decision Making.

Authors:  Matthew DeCamp; Jeremy Sugarman; Scott Adam Berkowitz
Journal:  Am J Accountable Care       Date:  2015-06-12

4.  Reducing the number of fetuses in a pregnancy: providers' and patients' views of challenges.

Authors:  Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  Hum Reprod       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 6.918

5.  How IRB leaders view and approach challenges raised by industry-funded research.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2013 May-Jun

Review 6.  Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Ekaterina Pivovarova; Paul Appelbaum; Deborah F Stiles; Alexandra Murray; Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-10-04

7.  Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight.

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

8.  How IRBs view and make decisions about consent forms.

Authors:  Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 1.742

9.  How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-03-08       Impact factor: 2.903

10.  How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2012-09-14       Impact factor: 2.903

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.