Public engagement can change your research, but how can it change your research institution? ICES case study

A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs

BACKGROUND

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members' roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs.

METHODS

We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

RESULTS

76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials.

CONCLUSIONS

Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

Integrating socially accountable health professional education and learning health systems to transform community health and health systems

A learning health system aims to create value in health systems using data-driven innovations, quality improvement techniques, and collaborations between health system partners. Although the concept is mobilized through cycles of learning, most instantiations of the learning health system overlook the importance of formalized learning in educational settings. Social accountability in health professional education focuses on measurably improving people's health and health care, specifically through education and training activities. In this commentary, we argue that the idea of social accountability clearly articulates a rationale and a broad range of aspirations, whereas the learning health system offers an approach to achieve these goals. With a similar aim to a learning health system, social accountability promotes partnerships between health professional education, the health system, and communities in a way that allows for co-designed and contextualized interventions. On the other hand, learning health systems prioritize data, research, and analytic capacities to facilitate quality improvement. An integrative framework could enhance learning cycles by collectively designing interventions and innovations with people and communities from health, research, and education systems. As well as aspiring to improve population health and health equity, such a framework will consider broader impacts, including the degree of participation amongst a range of partners and the level of responsiveness to partners' priorities.