Tamariz Leonardo, Medina Heidy, Taylor Janielle, Carrasquillo Olveen, Kobetz Erin, Palacio Ana
University of Miami, FL, USA Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA
University of Miami, FL, USA.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Dec;10(5):488-95. doi: 10.1177/1556264615615008. Epub 2015 Nov 1.
Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is challenging to research ethics committees (RECs). We reviewed the REC preparedness when reviewing CBPR projects. We searched the MEDLINE database and included qualitative studies of CBPR researchers or REC members about their experiences with RECs. The search yielded 107 studies, of which 10 met our criteria. Barriers were that the community is not prepared to conduct research, the reluctance of RECs to work outside the university, the difficulty RECs have understanding CBPR, and that REC forms evaluate individual rather than community risk. Facilitators were having a CBPR expert as an REC member and educating RECs. Therefore, RECs are not prepared to evaluate CBPR projects leading to unnecessary delays in the approval process.
基于社区的参与性研究（CBPR）对研究伦理委员会（RECs）而言具有挑战性。我们回顾了伦理委员会在审查CBPR项目时的准备情况。我们检索了MEDLINE数据库，并纳入了关于CBPR研究人员或伦理委员会成员与伦理委员会相关经历的定性研究。检索结果有107项研究，其中10项符合我们的标准。障碍包括社区未做好开展研究的准备、伦理委员会不愿在大学之外开展工作、伦理委员会理解CBPR存在困难，以及伦理委员会表格评估的是个体而非社区风险。促进因素包括有一名CBPR专家作为伦理委员会成员以及对伦理委员会进行培训。因此，伦理委员会未做好评估CBPR项目的准备，这导致审批过程出现不必要的延迟。
