Aligning Clinical Research Ethics with Community-engaged and Participatory Research in the United States

Overview

Journal Front Public Health

Specialty Public Health

Date 2023 May 22

PMID 37213625

Authors

Milton Mickey Eder

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

The professional role in ethical review of research in which boards review proposed research involving human beings continues to evolve. The scholarly literature on institutional review boards in academic centers of the United States, at which a majority of the community engaged and participatory research emanates and is reviewed, suggests the need to implement changes in board education, the infrastructure supporting review, and the accountability of review. The recommendations for change advanced in this perspective involve enhancing reviewer knowledge of local community contexts and developing an infrastructure that supports engagement in and dialogue among individuals involved in community-academic research to inform ethical review and the assessment of review outcomes. Additionally, recommendations regarding putting an institutional infrastructure in place are advanced in order to sustain community engaged and participatory research. The infrastructure can also support the collection and review of outcome data as the foundation of accountability. The recommendations outlined intend to improve clinical research ethics reviews of community-engaged and participatory research.

References

Heath E . The noninstitutional review board: what distinguishes us from them?. IRB. 2001; 20(5):8-11. View

Martin del Campo F, Casado J, Spencer P, Strelnick H . The development of the Bronx Community Research Review Board: a pilot feasibility project for a model of community consultation. Prog Community Health Partnersh. 2013; 7(3):341-52. PMC: 4795445. DOI: 10.1353/cpr.2013.0037. View

Shore N, Drew E, Brazauskas R, Seifer S . Relationships between community-based processes for research ethics review and institution-based IRBs: a national study. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011; 6(2):13-21. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.13. View

Michener L, Cook J, Ahmed S, Yonas M, Coyne-Beasley T, Aguilar-Gaxiola S . Aligning the goals of community-engaged research: why and how academic health centers can successfully engage with communities to improve health. Acad Med. 2012; 87(3):285-91. PMC: 3292771. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182441680. View

Ortiz K, Nash J, Shea L, Oetzel J, Garoutte J, Sanchez-Youngman S . Partnerships, Processes, and Outcomes: A Health Equity-Focused Scoping Meta-Review of Community-Engaged Scholarship. Annu Rev Public Health. 2020; 41:177-199. PMC: 8095013. DOI: 10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040119-094220. View

Allison R, Abbott L, Wichman A . Nonscientist IRB members at the NIH. IRB. 2008; 30(5):8-13. PMC: 2919835. View

Komro K, Flay B, Biglan A, Wagenaar A . Research design issues for evaluating complex multicomponent interventions in neighborhoods and communities. Transl Behav Med. 2016; 6(1):153-9. PMC: 4807196. DOI: 10.1007/s13142-015-0358-4. View

Friedman Ross L, Loup A, Nelson R, Botkin J, Kost R, Smith G . Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: points to consider. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010; 5(1):33-47. PMC: 2963647. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.33. View

Lidz C, Pivovarova E, Appelbaum P, Stiles D, Murray A, Klitzman R . Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff. AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018; 9(3):164-172. PMC: 6309766. DOI: 10.1080/23294515.2018.1510437. View

10.

Wilkins C, Alberti P . Shifting Academic Health Centers From a Culture of Community Service to Community Engagement and Integration. Acad Med. 2019; 94(6):763-767. PMC: 6538435. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002711. View

11.

. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent. 2015; 81(3):4-13. View

12.

Heckert A, Forsythe L, Carman K, Frank L, Hemphill R, Elstad E . Researchers, patients, and other stakeholders' perspectives on challenges to and strategies for engagement. Res Involv Engagem. 2020; 6:60. PMC: 7539495. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-020-00227-0. View

13.

Morgenstern J, Hegele R, Nisker J . Simple genetics language as source of miscommunication between genetics researchers and potential research participants in informed consent documents. Public Underst Sci. 2014; 24(6):751-66. DOI: 10.1177/0963662514528439. View

14.

Garrett S, Dohan D, Koenig B . Linking Broad Consent to Biobank Governance: Support From a Deliberative Public Engagement in California. Am J Bioeth. 2015; 15(9):56-7. PMC: 5234696. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2015.1062177. View

15.

Pritchard I . How do IRB members make decisions? A review and research agenda. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011; 6(2):31-46. DOI: 10.1525/jer.2011.6.2.31. View

16.

Unertl K, Fair A, Favours J, Dolor R, Smoot D, Wilkins C . Clinicians' perspectives on and interest in participating in a clinical data research network across the Southeastern United States. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018; 18(1):568. PMC: 6053753. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3399-9. View

17.

Joosten Y, Israel T, Williams N, Boone L, Schlundt D, Mouton C . Community Engagement Studios: A Structured Approach to Obtaining Meaningful Input From Stakeholders to Inform Research. Acad Med. 2015; 90(12):1646-50. PMC: 4654264. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000794. View

18.

Cho M, Taylor H, McCormick J, Anderson N, Barnard D, Boyle M . Building a Central Repository for Research Ethics Consultation Data: A Proposal for a Standard Data Collection Tool. Clin Transl Sci. 2015; 8(4):376-87. PMC: 4888071. DOI: 10.1111/cts.12268. View

19.

Wang C, Burris M . Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ Behav. 1997; 24(3):369-87. DOI: 10.1177/109019819702400309. View

20.

Macklin R . How independent are IRBs?. IRB. 2008; 30(3):15-9. View