What Scientists Want from Their Research Ethics Committee

Institutional review boards in Saudi Arabia: the first survey-based report on their functions and operations

BACKGROUND

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions.

RESULTS

Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review.

CONCLUSION

Saudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies.

Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions

Background

Performance evaluation is vital for IRB operations. As the number of IRBs and their responsibilities in reviewing and supervising clinical research grow in China, there is a significant need to evaluate their performances. To date, little research has examined IRB performance within China. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perspectives and experiences of IRB employees and researchers to (1) understand the current status of IRBs; (2) compare collected results with those of other countries; and (3) identify shortcomings to improve IRB performance.

Methods

This study was conducted in China from October 2020 to September 2021, using an online survey with the IRB-researcher assessment tool-Chinese version.

Results

757 respondents were included in the analysis and classified into IRB employees, researchers, or those who are both IRB employees and researchers. Overall, the score for an ideal IRB was significantly higher than that of an actual IRB. Compared to the US National Validation study, Chinese participants and American participants both agree and differ in their perspectives on the most and least important ideal items.

Conclusion

This investigation provides a benchmark of the perceived performance of actual IRBs in China. IRBs in China can be precisely adjusted by targeting identified areas of weakness to improve their performances.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs' access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.

Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version

BACKGROUND

Using an effective method for evaluating Institutional Review Board (IRB) performance is essential for ensuring an IRB's effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with applicable human research standards and organizational policies. Currently, no empirical research has yet been published in China evaluating IRB performance measures by the use of a standardized tool. This study was therefore conducted to develop a Chinese version of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version (IRB-RAT-CV), and validate the tool for use in China.

METHODS

In this cultural adaptation, cross-sectional validation study, the IRB-RAT-CV was developed through a back-translation process and then distributed to 587 IRB staff members and researchers in medical institutions and schools in Hunan Province that review biomedical and social-behavioral research. Data from the 470 valid questionnaires collected from participants was used to evaluate the reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the IRB-RAT-CV.

RESULTS

Participants' ratings of their ideal and actual IRB as measured by the IRB-RAT-CV achieved Cronbach's alpha 0.989 and 0.992, Spearman-Brown coefficient 0.964 and 0.968, and item-total correlation values ranging from 0.631 to 0.886 and 0.743 to 0.910, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The IRB-RAT-CV is a linguistically and culturally applicable tool for assessing the quality of IRBs in China.

Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.

Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis

Background

Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies.

Methods

An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable. The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined.

Results

Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants’ rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study’s scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19].

Conclusions

An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.

Should the Decisions of Institutional Review Boards Be Consistent?

In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision-making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision-making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision-making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision-making processes.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Regarding Research Ethics Committees Among Health Care Faculty at Two Public Universities in Jordan

Human research at Jordanian universities is increasing. This descriptive cross-sectional survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the procedures and review process of research ethics committees (RECs) among faculty in health sciences in two major Jordanian universities. Most faculty reported having no training in research ethics in their current institutions. Although knowledge of RECs' roles and functions was adequate, deficiencies were found regarding the advisory and monitoring roles for RECs raised in this survey. Faculty expressed concerns about levels of ethical training for members of RECs and potential conflicts of interest and bias in review process. RECs should provide ethics training for faculty, and future research should examine the functioning of the RECs in Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries.

Ethical Concerns in Suicide Research: Results of an International Researcher Survey

Researchers and research ethics committees share a common goal of conducting ethically sound research. However, little is known of researchers' experiences in obtaining ethics approval for suicide-related studies. This study aimed to investigate what concerns researchers have received on suicide-related ethics applications and how they dealt with it. Thirty-four respondents, recruited through the International Association for Suicide Prevention, filled out an online survey. The study found that researchers have received important concerns regarding potential harm and researchers' responsibilities to participants. Researchers modified their application and/or consulted their research ethics committee in response to the concerns, which had a positive/neutral impact on their given study. Anticipating concerns and improved collaboration between researchers and research ethics committees should protect the quality of suicide prevention research.

A Rare Opportunity: Examining the Experience of a New Institutional Review Board

The process of creating a new Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committee (REC) presents many challenges; however, little has been published to describe this experience. Thus, many questions about creating a new IRB/REC and the challenges they face remain. The establishment of a new federal-wide single IRB provided a rare opportunity to describe these experience and outcomes. A census of the activity and outcomes of this new board is reported for its first 3 years of operation: The convened board approved 50 protocols, required an average of 93.24 days and 2.76 reviews for protocol approval, and issued an average of 31.82 stipulations per protocol. The census data helped to identify several issues that impacted the board's outcomes and it serves as a baseline for future comparisons. The overall dynamics, challenges, and outcomes of this new single IRB are discussed.

Compliance with National Ethics Requirements for Human-Subject Research in Non-biomedical Sciences in Brazil: A Changing Culture?

Ethics regulation for human-subject research (HSR) has been established for about 20 years in Brazil. However, compliance with this regulation is controversial for non-biomedical sciences, particularly for human and social sciences (HSS), the source of a recent debate at the National Commission for Research Ethics. We hypothesized that for these fields, formal requirements for compliance with HSR regulation in graduate programs, responsible for the greatest share of Brazilian science, would be small in number. We analyzed institutional documents (collected from June 2014 to May 2015) from 171 graduate programs at six prestigious Brazilian universities in São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, the states that fund most of the science conducted in Brazil. Among these programs, 149 were in HSS. The results suggest that non-compliance with standard regulation seems to be the rule in most of these programs. The data may reflect not only a resistance from scientists in these fields to comply with standard regulations for ethics in HSR but also a disciplinary tradition that seems prevalent when it comes to research ethics in HSR. However, recent encounters between Brazilian biomedical and non-biomedical scientists for debates over ethics in HSR point to a changing culture in the approach to research ethics in the country.

Of Straws, Camels, Research Regulation, and IRBs

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become beleaguered by a growth in responsibilities related to research oversight in the past several decades. A number of regulatory bodies have appeared in response to these novel and complex responsibilities, seeking to respond to among other issues, conflicts of interest, new technologies, and the potential misuse of research findings. Here, we examine several examples of these novel regulatory bodies as well as a number of concerns related to them that have been largely unacknowledged. Evidence suggests that there can be disharmony and conflicts between these regulatory bodies and IRBs, a lack of clarity with regard to their roles and responsibilities, as well as shortcomings within these entities that, at times, look a lot like the worries that have long been raised in relation to IRBs. We offer a brief discussion of how some of these concerns might be ameliorated, either through a significant restructuring of the system of research oversight, or perhaps through smaller changes to these regulatory bodies.

Responsibility for scientific misconduct in collaborative papers

This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be.

The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time

Lengthy review times for institutional review boards (IRBs) are a well-known barrier to research. In response to numerous calls to reduce review times, we devised "Real-Time IRB," a process that drastically reduces IRB review time. In this, investigators and study staff attend the IRB meeting and make changes to the protocol while the IRB continues its meeting, so that final approval can be issued at the meeting. This achieved an overall reduction in time from submission to the IRB to final approval of 40%. While this process is time and resource intensive, and cannot address all delays in research, it shows great promise for increasing the pace by which research is translated to patient care.

Ethics Regulation in Social Computing Research: Examining the Role of Institutional Review Boards

The parallel rise of pervasive data collection platforms and computational methods for collecting, analyzing, and drawing inferences from large quantities of user data has advanced social computing research, investigating digital traces to understand mediated behaviors of individuals, groups, and societies. At the same time, methods employed to access these data have raised questions about ethical research practices. This article provides insights into U.S. institutional review boards' (IRBs) attitudes and practices regulating social computing research. Through descriptive and inferential analysis of survey data from staff at 59 IRBs at research universities, we examine how IRBs evaluate the growing variety of studies using pervasive digital data. Findings unpack the difficulties IRB staff face evaluating increasingly technical research proposals while highlighting the belief in their ability to surmount these difficulties. They also indicate a lack of consensus among IRB staff about what should be reviewed and a willingness to work closely with researchers.

A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India

Assessing the resources and functioning of research ethics committees (RECs) in low-resource settings poses many challenges. We conducted a case study of two medical college RECs (A and B) in Western India utilizing the Research Ethics Committee Quality Assurance Self-Assessment Tool (RECQASAT) as well as in-depth interviews with representative members to evaluate REC effectiveness. REC A and B obtained 62% and 67% of allowable points on the RECQASAT. These scores together with findings from the in-depth interviews suggest the need for significant improvement in REC effectiveness particularly in the areas of membership and educational training, organizational aspects, recording minutes, communicating decisions, and REC resources. Developing evidence-based best practices and strengthening infrastructure are essential to enhancing REC efficacy in low-resource countries.

Content Validation of the Organizational Climate for Research Integrity (OCRI) Survey

The purpose of this study was to develop and establish content validity of an instrument designed to measure the organizational climate for research integrity in academic health centers. Twenty-seven research integrity scholars and administrators evaluated 64 survey items for relevance and clarity, as well as overall comprehensiveness of the constructs that are measured (organizational inputs, structures, processes and outcomes). Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used, particularly content validity indices (CVI) and analyses of respondents' comments. The content validity index for the overall survey was initially high (CVI = .83) and improved (CVI = .90) when 17 marginal-to-poor items were removed. This study resulted in the Organizational Climate for Research Integrity (OCRI) survey, a 43-item fixed-response survey with established content validity.

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement

Background

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.

Methods

680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB.

Results

390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified.

Conclusions

Although these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool to Guide Quality Improvement

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are intended to protect those who participate in research. However, because there is no established measure of IRB quality, it is unclear whether these committees achieve their goal. The IRB Researcher Assessment Tool is a previously validated, internally normed, proxy measure of IRB quality that assesses 45 distinct IRB activities and functions. We administered this instrument to a sample of investigators and IRB members at a large urban VA Medical Center. We describe a systematic approach to analyze and interpret survey responses that can identify the IRB activities and functions most in need of quality improvement. The proposed approach to empirical data analysis and presentation could inform local initiatives to improve the quality of IRB review.

Those Responsible for Approving Research Studies Have Poor Knowledge of Research Study Design: a Knowledge Assessment of Institutional Review Board Members

Background:

Institutional Review Board (IRB) members have a duty to protect the integrity of the research process, but little is known about their basic knowledge of clinical research study designs

Methods:

A nationwide sample of IRB members from major US research universities completed a web-based questionnaire consisting of 11 questions focusing on basic knowledge about clinical research study designs. It included questions about randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other observational research study designs. Potential predictors (age, gender, educational attainment, type of IRB, current IRB membership, years of IRB service, clinical research experience, and self-identification as a scientist) of incorrect answers were evaluated using multivariate logistic regression models.

Results:

148 individuals from 36 universities participated. The majority of participants, 68.9% (102/148), were holding a medical or doctoral degree. Overall, only 26.5% (39/148) of participants achieved a perfect score of 11. On the six-question subset addressing RCTs, 46.6% (69/148) had a perfect score. Most individual questions, and the summary model of overall quiz score (perfect vs. not perfect), revealed no significant predictors – indicating that knowledge deficits were not limited to specific subgroups of IRB members. For the RCT knowledge score there was one significant predictor: compared with MDs, IRB members without a doctoral degree were three times as likely to answer at least one RCT question incorrectly (Odds Ratio: 3.00, 95% CI 1.10-8.20). However, even among MD IRB members, 34.1% (14/41) did not achieve a perfect score on the six RCT questions.

Conclusions:

This first nationwide study of IRB member knowledge about clinical research study designs found significant knowledge deficits. Knowledge deficits were not limited to laypersons or community advocate members of IRBs, as previously suggested. Akin to widespread ethical training requirements for clinical researchers, IRB members should undergo systematic training on clinical research designs.

A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review

Background

To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.

Methods

We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.

Results

Few studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial - randomised or otherwise – of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review.

Discussion

Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.

Awareness of Federal Regulatory Mechanisms Relevant to Community-Engaged Research: Survey of Health Disparities-Oriented NIH-Funded Investigators

Few studies or investigators involved in community-engaged research or community-based participatory research have examined awareness and adoption of federal regulatory mechanisms. We conducted a survey of investigators affiliated with the 10 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities. A questionnaire designed to capture experience with the conduct and oversight of community-engaged research, and awareness of pertinent regulatory mechanisms, including Federalwide Assurances (FWAs), Individual Investigator Agreements (IIAs), and Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreements (IAAs), was completed by 101 respondents (68% response rate). Although most were aware of FWAs, only a minority of those surveyed reported knowledge of IAAs and IIAs and even fewer had used them in their research with community partners. Implications for future training and oversight are discussed.

Is your ethics committee efficient? Using "IRB Metrics" as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand

Tensions between researchers and ethics committees have been reported in several institutions. Some reports suggest researchers lack confidence in the quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews, and that emphasis on strict procedural compliance and ethical issues raised by the IRB might unintentionally lead to delays in correspondence between researchers and ethics committees, and/or even encourage prevarication/equivocation, if researchers perceive committee concerns and criticisms unjust. This study systematically analyzed the efficiency of different IRB functions, and the relationship between efficiency and perceived quality of the decision-making process. The major purposes of this study were thus (1) to use the IRB Metrics developed by the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand (FTM-EC) to assess the operational efficiency and perceived effectiveness of its ethics committees, and (2) to determine ethical issues that may cause the duration of approval process to be above the target limit of 60 days. Based on a literature review of definitions and methods used and proposed for use, in assessing aspects of IRB quality, an “IRB Metrics” was developed to assess IRB processes using a structure-process-outcome measurement model. To observe trends in the indicators evaluated, data related to all protocols submitted to the two panels of the FTM-EC (clinical and non-clinical), between January 2010–September 2013, were extracted and analyzed. Quantitative information based on IRB Metrics structure-process-outcome illuminates different areas for internal-process improvement. Ethical issues raised with researchers by the IRB, which were associated with the duration of the approval process in protocol review, could be considered root causes of tensions between the parties. The assessment of IRB structure-process-outcome thus provides a valuable opportunity to strengthen relationships and reduce conflicts between IRBs and researchers, with positive outcomes for all parties involved in the conduct of human-subject research.

Assessing Institutional Ethics Committees in India Using the IRB-RAT

Institutional ethics committees (IECs) are currently still in their infancy in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs), which may have important implications with regard to the oversight of the protection of human participants. Understanding how these IECs currently function is a critical first step in helping LMICs build infrastructures that support the protection of research participants and improve the scientific quality of health research worldwide. We assessed the functioning of the IECs at two medical colleges in Gujarat, India, by administering the Institutional Review Board Researcher's Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT) to 42 IEC and faculty members. The IRB-RAT includes eight scales assessing various domains related to how investigators and members perceive their ethics committees. Results from t tests revealed significant differences between ideal ratings and descriptive ratings on each of the IRB-RAT scales with ideal ratings being higher than current descriptive ratings on all of the scales (<.001). These findings suggest areas that can be targeted for improvement and also provide important information about the values of Indian IECs.

Knowledge about the research and ethics committee at Makerere University, Kampala

BACKGROUND

All research involving human participants should be reviewed by a competent and independent institutional research and ethics committee. Research conducted at Makerere University College of Health Sciences should be subjected to a rigorous review process by the ethics committee in order to protect human participants' interests, rights and welfare.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate researchers' knowledge about the functions and ethical review process of the College of Health Sciences research and ethics committee.

METHODS

A cross sectional study. 135 researchers consented to participate in the study, but 70 questionnaires were answered giving a 52% response.

RESULTS

Age ranged between 30 to 61 years, majority of participants 30-39 years. Most of the respondents do agree that the REC functions include Protocol review 86%, protection of research participants 84.3%, and monitoring of ongoing research. During ethical review, the RECpays special attention to scientific design [79.7%] and ethical issues [75.3%], but less to the budget and literature review. More than 97% of the respondents believe that the REC is either average or very good, while 2.8% rank it below average.

CONCLUSION

Respondents knew the major functions of the committee including protection of the rights and welfare of research participants, protocol review and monitoring of on going research, and the elements of protocol review that are given more attention include ;scientific design and ethical issues. Overall performance of the REC was ranked as average by respondents. The committee should limit delays in approval and effectively handle all functions of the committee.

Investigators' successful strategies for working with Institutional Review Boards

This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches for obtaining IRB approval of multi-site studies.

Ethical issues in research involving minority populations: the process and outcomes of protocol review by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand

BACKGROUND

Recruiting minorities into research studies requires special attention, particularly when studies involve "extra-vulnerable" participants with multiple vulnerabilities, e.g., pregnant women, the fetuses/neonates of ethnic minorities, children in refugee camps, or cross-border migrants. This study retrospectively analyzed submissions to the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine (FTM-EC) in Thailand. Issues related to the process and outcomes of proposal review, and the main issues for which clarification/revision were requested on studies, are discussed extensively.

METHODS

The study data were extracted from proposals and amendments submitted to the FTM-EC during the period October 2009 - September 2012, and then analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. The main issues for clarification/revision were analyzed by thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

373 proposals were submitted; 44 studies involved minority groups with 21 extra-vulnerable minorities. All clinical and 2/3 of non-clinical studies submitted for initial review underwent full-board review. For combined clinical and non-clinical study submissions, 92.1% were referred back to the investigators and approved after clarification/revision, while 2.7% were deferred due to major/critical changes, and 2.1% not approved due to substantial violations of ethical principles. The main issues needing clarification/revision differed between all studies and those involving minorities: participant information sheet (62.2% vs. 86.4%), informed consent/assent form (51.2% vs. 86.4%), and research methodology (80.7% vs. 84.1%), respectively. The main ethical issues arising during the meetings, regarding studies involving minorities, included ensuring no exploitation, coercion, or pressure on the minority to participate; methodology not affecting their legal status; considering ethnicity and cultural structure; and providing appropriate compensation.

CONCLUSION

Delays in the approval or non-approval of studies involving minorities were mainly due to major or minor deviations from acceptable ethical standards and/or unclear research methodology. The FTM-EC has employed several mechanisms in its operations, including transparency in the review process, building good relationships via open communication with investigators, requesting investigators to consider closely the necessity to enroll minority groups and the risk-benefits for individuals and their communities, and the inclusion of minority-community engagement when developing the proposal. Other effective activities include annual study-site inspections, and offering refresher courses to raise awareness of minority and vulnerability issues among researchers.

Methods for Assessing and Addressing Participant Protection Concerns in Intimate Partner Violence Research

Research on intimate partner violence (IPV) is highly sensitive and may put some participants at increased psychological, emotional, and physical risk. Still, we know little about the risks posed by most social science methods and have minimal guidance regarding appropriate practices for carrying out various forms of research. This study collected data from 59 IPV researchers regarding the most commonly used participant protection methods, the efficacy of those methods, number and nature of adverse events (AE) experienced, and experiences with institutional review boards (IRBs). Participants were invited via e-mail to complete an anonymous online survey. Findings indicate an overall low incidence of AEs as well as a minimal relationship between AEs and IPV inquiry. These findings may provide researchers with preliminary data on the effectiveness of various participant protection methods. Results may also facilitate more innovative and effective participant protections measures, help researchers prevent and cope with AE, and create more mutually beneficial relationships with IRBs.

Human research ethics committees: examining their roles and practices

Considerable time and resources are invested in the ethics review process. We present qualitative data on how human research ethics committee members and health researchers perceive the role and function of the committee. The findings are based on interviews with 34 Australian ethics committee members and 54 health researchers. Although all participants agreed that the primary role of the ethics committee was to protect participants, there was disagreement regarding the additional roles undertaken by committees. Of particular concern were the perceptions from some ethics committee members and researchers that ethics committees were working to protect the institution's interests, as well as being overprotective toward research participants. This has the potential to lead to poor relations and mistrust between ethics committees and researchers.

Scientists' perceptions of organizational justice and self-reported misbehaviors

Policymakers concerned about maintaining the integrity of science have recently expanded their attention from a focus on misbehaving individuals to characteristics of the environments in which scientists work. Little empirical evidence exists about the role of organizational justice in promoting or hindering scientific integrity. Our findings indicate that when scientists believe they are being treated unfairly they are more likely to behave in ways that compromise the integrity of science. Perceived violations of distributive and procedural justice were positively associated with self-reports of misbehavior among scientists.

Investigating Perceived Institutional Review Board Quality and Function Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool

THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD-RESEARCHER ASSESSMENT TOOL (IRB-RAT) was designed to assess the relative importance of various factors to the effective functioning of IRBs. We employed the IRB-RAT to gain insight into the ways in which our IRB is perceived to be deficient by those who routinely interact with our Office of Research Integrity and Protections. Respondents ranked qualities thought to be characteristic of an "ideal" IRB and then compared our IRB to that internal standard. We observed that the rate of study participation varied by role. The composite relative ranking of the 45 items that comprise the IRB-RAT differed significantly from the rank order reported by Keith-Spiegel et al. Our data furthermore suggest that role influences scoring of the IRB-RAT (e.g., investigators awarded our IRB significantly higher scores in several areas than did research coordinators). Additional research is warranted to determine if the observed role-dependent differences in the perceived quality of our IRB simply reflect the local research culture or if they are indicative of a more fundamental and generalizable difference in outlook between investigators and research coordinators.

U. S. Health Researchers Review their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study

VIRTUALLY ALL RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMAN subjects in the United States must be reviewed by an institutional review board, a form of research ethics review board. This article reports the results of qualitative research on how investigators regard this regulatory regime. Interviews were conducted with forty investigators conducting health-related research. Most respondents shared the regulations' goals, but doubted that the regulations, as implemented, promoted these goals efficiently, effectively and fairly. The interviews suggest that efforts to raise researchers' ethical consciousness have been, over time, quite successful, but that implementation of the regulations remains problematic. Research aimed at better defining the problem to be solved b y the r egulatory sy stem, and at a ssessing the effectiveness of the regulatory tools for solving properly defined problems, could guide a more productive debate about human subject protection.

Environmental Factors Contributing to Wrongdoing in Medicine: A Criterion-Based Review of Studies and Cases

In this paper we describe our approach to understanding wrongdoing in medical research and practice, which involves the statistical analysis of coded data from a large set of published cases. We focus on understanding the environmental factors that predict the kind and the severity of wrongdoing in medicine. Through review of empirical and theoretical literature, consultation with experts, the application of criminological theory, and ongoing analysis of our first 60 cases, we hypothesize that 10 contextual features of the medical environment (including financial rewards, oversight failures, and patients belonging to vulnerable groups) may contribute to professional wrongdoing. We define each variable, examine data supporting our hypothesis, and present a brief case synopsis from our study that illustrates the potential influence of the variable. Finally, we discuss limitations of the resulting framework and directions for future research.

The ethics police?: IRBs' views concerning their power

Background

In recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.

Methods

I conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).

Results

Interviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are “merely following the regulations,” and their process is “open,” impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and “the community values,” and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.

Conclusions

This study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs—to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.

How Do IRB Members Make Decisions? A Review and Research Agenda

Many factors have been found to influence the nature and quality of the human research ethics review process. These are reviewed along with discussion of ways in which normal psychological characteristics and group decision-making processes may affect the decisions of institutional review board (IRB) members when reviewing proposed research activities, and may contribute to the acknowledged variability of IRB responses to identical research proposals. Three salient features of human judgment and decision-making illuminated by the existing psychological research literature are used to illustrate this idea: Research findings related to (a) risk perception and acceptance, (b) the standards people use to make decisions, and (c) some nonrational influences on group decision-making suggest how psychological characteristics may affect some outcomes of convened IRB meetings. Recognizing such influences may enable the improvement of IRB decision-making.

Research ethics I: Responsible conduct of research (RCR)--historical and contemporary issues pertaining to human and animal experimentation

PURPOSE

In this series of articles--Research Ethics I, Research Ethics II, and Research Ethics III--the authors provide a comprehensive review of the 9 core domains for the responsible conduct of research (RCR) as articulated by the Office of Research Integrity. In Research Ethics I, they present a historical overview of the evolution of RCR in the United States then examine the evolution of human and animal experimentation from the birth of scientific medicine through World War II to the present day.

METHOD

They relied on authoritative documents, both historical and contemporary, insightful commentary, and empirical research in order to identify current issues and controversies of potential interest to both faculty and students.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors have written this article from a historical perspective because they think all readers interested in RCR should appreciate how the history of science and all the good--and harm--it has produced can inform how researchers practice responsible research in the 21st century and beyond.

The importance of organizational justice in ensuring research integrity

The professional behavior of scientists, for good or ill, is likely associated with their perceptions of whether they are treated fairly in their work environments, including their academic department and university and by relevant regulatory bodies. These relationships may also be influenced by their own personal characteristics, such as being overcommitted to their work, and by the interactions between these factors. Theory also suggests that such associations may be mediated by negative or positive affect. We examined these issues using data from a national, mail-based survey administered in 2006 and 2007 to 5,000 randomly selected faculty from biomedical and social science departments at 50 top-tier research universities in the United States. We found that perceptions of justice in one's workplace (organizational justice) are positively associated with self-report of "ideal" behaviors and negatively associated with self-report of misbehavior and misconduct. By contrast, researchers who perceive that they are being unfairly treated are less likely to report engaging in "ideal" behaviors and more likely to report misbehavior and misconduct. Overcommitment to one's work is also associated with negative affect and interacts with perceptions of unfair treatment in ways that are associated with higher self-report of misbehavior. Thus, perceptions of fair treatment in the work environment appear to play important roles in fostering-or undermining-research integrity.

A theoretical comparison of the models of prevention of research misconduct

The current methods of dealing with research misconduct involve detection and rectification after the incident has already occurred. This method of monitoring scientific integrity exerts considerable negative effects on the concerned persons and is also wasteful of time and resources. Time has arrived for research administrators to focus seriously on prevention of misconduct. In this article, preventive models suggested earlier by Weed and Reason have been combined to arrive at six models of prevention. This is an effort to streamline the thinking regarding misconduct prevention, so that the advantages and disadvantages of each can be weighed and the method most appropriate for the institute chosen.

Resources Employed by Health Researchers to Ensure Ethical Research Practice

There is little empirical evidence about what resources health researchers use in order to make decisions about the ethical conduct of human research. Undertaking an empirical examination of how researchers understand research ethics and how they address ethical issues in research practice can lead to a richer understanding of how researchers approach research ethics. Our findings are based on interviews with 54 Australian health researchers. We conclude that, despite the considerable time devoted to ethics review, ethics committees and research guidelines were not seen as valuable resources for researchers undertaking research in the field. Although researchers did not perceive ethics committees as a resource when faced with ethical issues in the field, they nevertheless perceived the process of ethics review as beneficial to them; this allowed them to clarify their research, make decisions about the ethical conduct of the research, as well as offering them a sense of protection when undertaking research. In the actual undertaking of research practice, it was their past professional experience and personal values that researchers considered most useful resources when encountering ethical problems.

Ethics Review in a Developing Country: A Survey of South African Social Scientists' Experiences

We report the findings of a preliminary study of social science researchers' experiences of ethics review from a developing country perspective. Social science researchers' experiences of ethics review were coded as negative (42.6%), positive (21.3%), or mixed (36.2%). Ethics review was primarily experienced as negative for pragmatic reasons such as slow turnaround time, inadequate review and problems with the centralization of review. Our finding that South African researchers experience the same problems and frustrations with RECs as developed country researchers affirms that South Africa's problems with ethics review are not due to it being a less developed system, but to general review practices as they arise naturally in institutions. Developing countries thus have a unique opportunity to learn from the reported dissatisfactions and mistakes of developed countries, to avoid procedures that have hindered ethics review of much social science research in developed countries, and to fashion their own review procedures in ways that are more appropriate to key ethical issues arising in social science research and local conditions and resources.

Exploring the Relationship between Faculty, Students, and the Social and Behavioral Ethics Review Committee through Action Research

Student researchers used action research both to study the relationship between university researchers and the ethics committee, and also to explore the ethics committee's approach to protocols involving action research and other qualitative methods. We review the existing literature on relationships between university faculty and their ethics committees and briefly discuss the basic tenets of action research. We then describe our research process and the specific recommendations that resulted from this work. Finally, we consider the ways in which action research can be used to better understand and address institutional problems through effective collaboration and dialogue.

Ethics in research with human beings: some issues about Psychology

This paper examines some ethical issues in research with human beings, especially addressing the area of Psychology, such as the use of ethical codes; minimum risk; informed consent; debriefing; confidentiality; and ethical committees. It suggests ways for researchers to increase understanding and the proper use of the ethical codes, to guarantee their own protection, and to avoid abuses of power. Special attention is given to methodological issues related to ethics.