Suppr超能文献

机构审查委员会/伦理审查委员会成员对其人类研究风险评估的信心:一项关于机构审查委员会/伦理审查委员会实际决策的研究

Confidence of IRB/REC Members in Their Assessments of Human Research Risk: A Study of IRB/REC Decision Making in Action.

作者信息

Grinnell Frederick, Sadler John Z, McNamara Victoria, Senetar Kristen, Reisch Joan

机构信息

1 UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

出版信息

J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2017 Jul;12(3):140-149. doi: 10.1177/1556264617710386. Epub 2017 May 30.

Abstract

Understanding how institutional review boards/research ethics committees (IRBs/RECs) perform risk/benefit assessment is important to help improve their function. In environmental ethics, uncertainty about potential outcomes and the precautionary principle play important roles in regulatory oversight but have received little attention in the context of human research ethics. We carried out an empirical study to gain insight into uncertainty by asking IRB/REC members about confidence in their risk assessments immediately after discussion of new protocols under review. Based on 12 meetings carried out by four IRBs/RECs over a 6-month period, we found a robust, inverse relationship between risk and confidence. As risk increased, confidence decreased. We detected different patterns of consensus between different IRBs/RECs and their members. Our study introduces a novel and relatively easy to implement approach to begin to understand IRB/REC decision making in real time that can be used within or across institutions.

摘要

了解机构审查委员会/研究伦理委员会(IRB/REC)如何进行风险/收益评估对于帮助改善其功能至关重要。在环境伦理中,潜在结果的不确定性和预防原则在监管监督中发挥着重要作用,但在人类研究伦理背景下却很少受到关注。我们进行了一项实证研究,通过在IRB/REC成员讨论新的待审查方案后立即询问他们对风险评估的信心,来深入了解不确定性。基于四个IRB/REC在6个月内进行的12次会议,我们发现风险与信心之间存在强烈的反比关系。随着风险增加,信心下降。我们检测到不同IRB/REC及其成员之间存在不同的共识模式。我们的研究引入了一种新颖且相对易于实施的方法,以开始实时了解IRB/REC的决策过程,该方法可在机构内部或跨机构使用。

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