Suppr超能文献

多中心研究的地方知识与单一机构审查委员会:挑战与解决方案

Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.

作者信息

Klitzman Robert, Pivovarova Ekaterina, Murray Alexandra, Appelbaum Paul S, Stiles Deborah F, Lidz Charles W

机构信息

Professor of psychiatry and the director of the Master of Science in Bioethics Program at Columbia University.

Assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester.

出版信息

Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jan;41(1):22-31. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500003.

Abstract

New federal policies require single IRB review for multisite studies, but many questions remain about how these IRBs will use local knowledge. The findings from our study, the first to examine how single IRBs perceive needs for local knowledge, reveal several challenges. Study respondents identified four potentially relevant types of local knowledge: about culture and linguistics, about geography and socioeconomics, about the researchers, and about the institutions. Such knowledge can potentially be obtained through local sites, but single IRBs may be unaware of potentially relevant local information, and lack of informal relationships may impede single IRBs' reviews and interactions with researchers. While a recent, commonly used, standardized single-IRB form asks three basic questions about local information, our findings suggest potential needs for additional information and, thus, have important implications for practice, policy, and research.

摘要

新的联邦政策要求对多中心研究进行单一机构审查委员会(IRB)审查,但关于这些IRB将如何利用本地知识仍存在许多问题。我们的研究首次探讨了单一IRB如何看待本地知识需求,研究结果揭示了几个挑战。参与研究的受访者确定了四种可能相关的本地知识类型:关于文化和语言、关于地理和社会经济、关于研究人员以及关于机构。此类知识可能通过本地研究点获取,但单一IRB可能未意识到潜在相关的本地信息,并且缺乏非正式关系可能会妨碍单一IRB的审查以及与研究人员的互动。虽然最近常用的标准化单一IRB表格询问了关于本地信息的三个基本问题,但我们的研究结果表明可能需要更多信息,因此对实践、政策和研究具有重要意义。

相似文献

1
Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jan;41(1):22-31. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500003.
2
3
The ethics police?: IRBs' views concerning their power.
PLoS One. 2011;6(12):e28773. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0028773. Epub 2011 Dec 13.
4
When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Jan;42(1):36-40. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500041.
5
"Members of the same club": challenges and decisions faced by US IRBs in identifying and managing conflicts of interest.
PLoS One. 2011;6(7):e22796. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0022796. Epub 2011 Jul 29.
6
Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012 Jul;7(3):50-62. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.50.
7
How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US.
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Jun 23;12:13. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-13.
8
From anonymity to "open doors": IRB responses to tensions with researchers.
BMC Res Notes. 2012 Jul 3;5:347. doi: 10.1186/1756-0500-5-347.

引用本文的文献

2
Key lessons and strategies for implementing single IRB review in the Trial Innovation Network.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Apr 19;6(1):e53. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.391. eCollection 2022.
3
The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Mar 23;6(1):e39. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.376. eCollection 2022.
4
Pediatric specific challenges of the single institutional review board mandate.
Trials. 2022 Mar 21;23(1):224. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-06141-y.
5
Considerations of sex and gender dimensions by research ethics committees: a scoping review.
Int Health. 2022 Nov 1;14(6):554-561. doi: 10.1093/inthealth/ihab093.
8
When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.
Ethics Hum Res. 2020 Jan;42(1):36-40. doi: 10.1002/eahr.500041.

本文引用的文献

1
Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature.
Clin Trials. 2013 Aug;10(4):560-7. doi: 10.1177/1740774513484393. Epub 2013 May 10.
2
The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012 Feb;7(1):1-6. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.1.
3
Learning health care systems and justice.
Hastings Cent Rep. 2011 Jul-Aug;41(4):3. doi: 10.1002/j.1552-146x.2011.tb00105.x.
4
How local IRBs view central IRBs in the US.
BMC Med Ethics. 2011 Jun 23;12:13. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-12-13.
5
Normal Misbehavior: Scientists Talk about the Ethics of Research.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Mar;1(1):43-50. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43.
6
Scientists behaving badly.
Nature. 2005 Jun 9;435(7043):737-8. doi: 10.1038/435737a.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验