• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

当患者和社区成员作为研究人员参与时的机构审查委员会培训。

Institutional review board training when patients and community members are engaged as researchers.

作者信息

Westfall John M, Zittleman Linda, Felzien Maret, Ringel Marc, Lakin Alison, Nease Don

机构信息

High Plains Research Network (HPRN), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.

出版信息

Fam Pract. 2017 Jun 1;34(3):301-304. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw112.

DOI:10.1093/fampra/cmw112
PMID:28525924
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6080564/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement efforts often rely on a participatory research approach, which means engaging patients and community members in all aspects of research. As research team members, they require familiarity with the principles of human subject protection, privacy, and institutional review boards (IRB). However, the time required for individual IRB training may be a barrier to engaging community members in participatory research. As more community members participated in research, the State Networks of Colorado Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) was faced with finding a balance between including community members as part of the research team and the significant time commitment and institutional requirements for human subjects research oversight.

OBJECTIVE

Design and implement a community training on human subject protection in research.

METHODS

The SNOCAP team worked with the leadership from the Colorado Multi-Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) to develop a training programme that included the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects.

RESULTS

The final training programme was based on the core principles of the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Privacy was taught using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) national guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

The members of the High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council were fully engaged in developing the training programme, as well as in the training itself. They were committed to the principles and guidelines for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects. Patients and community members have become a critical part of our research team. They understand the principles of human subjects protection and privacy and incorporate these principles into their research activities.

摘要

背景

患者参与研究的工作通常依赖于参与式研究方法,这意味着让患者和社区成员参与研究的各个方面。作为研究团队成员,他们需要熟悉保护人类受试者、隐私以及机构审查委员会(IRB)的原则。然而,个人接受IRB培训所需的时间可能成为让社区成员参与参与式研究的障碍。随着越来越多的社区成员参与研究,科罗拉多实践与合作伙伴州网络(SNOCAP)面临着在将社区成员纳入研究团队与人类受试者研究监督所需的大量时间投入和机构要求之间找到平衡的问题。

目的

设计并实施一项关于研究中保护人类受试者的社区培训。

方法

SNOCAP团队与科罗拉多多机构审查委员会(COMIRB)的领导层合作,制定了一个培训计划,其中包括保护人类受试者的伦理原则和指导方针。

结果

最终的培训计划基于《贝尔蒙报告》的核心原则:尊重个人、行善和公正。使用《健康保险流通与责任法案》(HIPAA)国家指导方针教授隐私知识。

结论

高平原研究网络社区咨询委员会的成员充分参与了培训计划的制定以及培训本身。他们致力于保护人类受试者权利和福利的原则和指导方针。患者和社区成员已成为我们研究团队的重要组成部分。他们理解保护人类受试者和隐私的原则,并将这些原则纳入他们的研究活动中。

相似文献

1
Institutional review board training when patients and community members are engaged as researchers.当患者和社区成员作为研究人员参与时的机构审查委员会培训。
Fam Pract. 2017 Jun 1;34(3):301-304. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmw112.
2
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.美国临床肿瘤学会政策声明:临床研究监督
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
3
Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: a case study.与基于社区的参与式研究人类暴露于环境毒素相关的机构审查委员会挑战:案例研究。
Environ Health. 2010 Jul 16;9:39. doi: 10.1186/1476-069X-9-39.
4
A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent.一项关于机构审查委员会成员使用知情同意紧急例外情况审查研究提案的经验的定性研究。
J Med Ethics. 2007 May;33(5):289-93. doi: 10.1136/jme.2005.014878.
5
Engaging Institutional Review Boards in Developing a Brief, Community-Responsive Human Subjects Training for Community Partners.让机构审查委员会参与制定一份简短的、响应社区需求的社区合作伙伴人类受试者培训。
Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2016;10(3):471-477. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2016.0053.
6
Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET): developing accessible and relevant research ethics training for community-based participatory research with people with lived and living experience using illicit drugs and harm reduction workers.社区参与式研究伦理培训(CERET):为使用非法药物和减少伤害工作者的具有生活和生存经验的人开展基于社区的参与式研究开发可及和相关的研究伦理培训。
Harm Reduct J. 2023 Jul 6;20(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00818-6.
7
HIPAA and what institutional review boards (IRBs) do not have to review.《健康保险流通与责任法案》以及机构审查委员会(IRB)无需审查的内容。
Hum Res Rep. 2003 Dec;18(12):1-2.
8
Informed consent for research on stored blood and tissue samples: a survey of institutional review board practices.关于储存血液和组织样本研究的知情同意:机构审查委员会实践调查
Account Res. 2002 Jan-Mar;9(1):1-16. doi: 10.1080/08989620210354.
9
Informed consent for research and authorization under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Privacy Rule: an integrated approach.研究知情同意与《健康保险流通与责任法案》隐私规则下的授权:一种综合方法。
Ann Intern Med. 2006 May 2;144(9):685-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-144-9-200605020-00012.
10
Institutional review board approval: why it matters.机构审查委员会批准:为何重要。
J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Feb;89(2):418-26. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.F.00362.

引用本文的文献

1
Community-Engaged Research Ethics Training (CERET): developing accessible and relevant research ethics training for community-based participatory research with people with lived and living experience using illicit drugs and harm reduction workers.社区参与式研究伦理培训(CERET):为使用非法药物和减少伤害工作者的具有生活和生存经验的人开展基于社区的参与式研究开发可及和相关的研究伦理培训。
Harm Reduct J. 2023 Jul 6;20(1):86. doi: 10.1186/s12954-023-00818-6.
2
Engaging diverse community members to enhance analysis and interpretation: processing qualitative interview data.让不同的社区成员参与进来,以增强分析和解释:处理定性访谈数据。
Fam Med Community Health. 2022 Feb;10(1). doi: 10.1136/fmch-2021-001235.
3
Educational content and challenges encountered when training service user representatives as peer researchers in a mixed study on patient experience of hospital safety.在一项关于患者医院安全体验的混合研究中,将服务使用者代表培训为同行研究者时遇到的教育内容和挑战。
Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Sep 1;6:50. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-00226-1. eCollection 2020.
4
Partnering with patients in healthcare research: a scoping review of ethical issues, challenges, and recommendations for practice.与患者合作参与医疗保健研究:伦理问题、挑战及实践建议的范围综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2020 May 11;21(1):34. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-0460-0.

本文引用的文献

1
The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research.《贝尔蒙报告》。保护人类研究受试者的伦理原则与准则。
J Am Coll Dent. 2014 Summer;81(3):4-13.
2
Capacity building from the inside out: development and evaluation of a CITI ethics certification training module for American Indian and Alaska Native community researchers.从内而外的能力建设:为美国印第安人和阿拉斯加原住民社区研究人员开发和评估CITI伦理认证培训模块
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014 Feb;9(1):46-57. doi: 10.1525/jer.2014.9.1.46.
3
Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice.揭示参与式研究的益处:对健康研究和实践的现实主义综述的启示。
Milbank Q. 2012 Jun;90(2):311-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00665.x.
4
Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities.运用基于社区的参与性研究来解决健康差异问题。
Health Promot Pract. 2006 Jul;7(3):312-23. doi: 10.1177/1524839906289376. Epub 2006 Jun 7.