Guta Adrian, Wilson Michael G, Flicker Sarah, Travers Robb, Mason Catherine, Wenyeve Gloria, O'Campo Patricia
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Jun;5(2):35-46. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.2.35.
Access barriers to effective ethics review continue to be a significant challenge for researchers and community-based organizations undertaking community-based participatory research (CBPR). This article reports on findings from a content analysis of select (Behavioural, Biomedical, Social Sciences, Humanities) research ethics boards (REBs) in the Canadian research context (n = 86). Existing ethics review documentation was evaluated using 30 CBPR related criteria for their sensitivity to relevant approaches, processes, and outcomes. A linear regression was conducted to determine whether specific organizational characteristics have an impact on the CBPR sensitivity: (1) region of Canada, (2) type of institution (university or a healthcare organization), (3) primary institutional language (English or French) and (4) national ranking with respect to research intensiveness. While only research intensiveness proved statistically significant (p = .001), we recognize REB protocol forms may not actually reflect how CBPR is reviewed. Despite using a single guiding ethical framework, REBs across Canada employ a variety of techniques to review research studies. We report on these differences and varying levels of sensitivity to CBPR. Finally, we highlight best practices and make recommendations for integrating CBPR principles into existing ethics review.
对于从事社区参与式研究（CBPR）的研究人员和社区组织而言，有效伦理审查的准入障碍仍然是一个重大挑战。本文报告了对加拿大研究背景下（n = 86）选定的（行为科学、生物医学、社会科学、人文科学）研究伦理委员会（REB）进行内容分析的结果。使用30条与CBPR相关的标准对现有的伦理审查文件进行评估，以确定其对相关方法、流程和结果的敏感性。进行了线性回归分析，以确定特定的组织特征是否对CBPR敏感性有影响：（1）加拿大地区；（2）机构类型（大学或医疗保健组织）；（3）主要机构语言（英语或法语）；（4）在研究密集程度方面的全国排名。虽然只有研究密集程度在统计上具有显著意义（p = 0.001），但我们认识到REB的协议表格可能并未实际反映CBPR的审查方式。尽管使用单一的指导伦理框架，但加拿大各地的REB采用多种技术来审查研究项目。我们报告了这些差异以及对CBPR的不同敏感程度。最后，我们强调了最佳实践，并就将CBPR原则纳入现有伦理审查提出了建议。
