Tumilty Emma, Young Jake, James Richard, Serpico Kimberley, Johnson Ann, Anderson Emily E
Department of Bioethics and Health Humanities, School of Population and Public Health, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Texas, USA.
American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, USA.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2025 Oct 1:15562646251376747. doi: 10.1177/15562646251376747.
REB membership and its local idioculture play a key role in the decisions made. Little evidence exists as to what composition of membership expertise and training creates the conditions for a board to be most effective. This scoping review of the empirical research on REB membership and expertise aims to outline what evidence has been gathered and what gaps exist. Our main research question was: What empirical research exists on how research ethics boards (REBs) identify and train members and ensure they have adequate expertise to review research protocols? We found a small and diverse body of literature from around the world. We summarized findings in four themes: scientific expertise, ethical, legal and regulatory training and expertise, diversity of identity and perspectives, and engagement with research participant perspectives. Studies reviewed identified issues for all aspects of membership expertise and training. Further work is needed to establish best practices.
研究伦理委员会（REB）的成员构成及其当地独特文化在决策过程中起着关键作用。关于何种成员专业知识和培训组合能为委员会创造最有效条件的证据很少。这项对REB成员资格和专业知识的实证研究的范围综述旨在概述已收集到的证据以及存在的差距。我们的主要研究问题是：关于研究伦理委员会（REBs）如何识别和培训成员并确保他们具备审查研究方案的足够专业知识，有哪些实证研究？我们发现了来自世界各地的少量且多样的文献。我们将研究结果总结为四个主题：科学专业知识、伦理、法律和监管培训及专业知识、身份和观点的多样性以及与研究参与者观点的互动。所审查的研究确定了成员专业知识和培训各方面的问题。需要进一步开展工作以确立最佳实践。
