What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Should Researchers Destroy Audio or Video Recordings?

It is a common practice in qualitative research to transcribe audio or video files from interviews or focus groups and then destroy the files at some future time, usually after validating the transcript or concluding the research. We argue that it is time to rethink this practice and that retention of original qualitative data-including audio and video recordings-should be the default stance in most cases.

A narrative review on the development of the ethical review mode of multicenter clinical trials in China

Background and Objective

The number of new drug clinical trials in China is surging, and ethics review played an important part in clinical trials. However, there are certain problems of ethical review in China. This review aims to conduct a review to propose recommendations of an ethical review mode for multicenter clinical trials and ultimately contribute to improving the ethics review mechanism and the efficiency.

Methods

A literature review, publication research and interpretation of the related governmental policies and requirements in China were conducted to collect available information for analysis of the current situation in terms of the various ethical review modes for multicenter clinical research. The literatures and information were searched and selected from national and international database and related governance website by following some inclusion and exclusion criteria. And a comparation with the relevant practical experience in the USA was conducted to support the proposing of recommendations to China by referring to some successful practice in the USA.

Key Content and Findings

China has undergone several stages of development. The most traditional and least efficient model is institutional review boards (IRBs) review, which is most commonly used. After IRB review mode, other modes such as central IRB and single IRB review have emerged, which have improved the efficiency of ethical review. However, multiple challenges exist like, no clear definition of regulatory responsibilities and the consensus is not easy to be made due to the gap of interpretation and the unbalanced development on ethic review system from Chinese hospitals.

Conclusions

The multicenter ethical review should adopt the conditional 'approval' mode of the leading site's ethical review decisions, gradually establish a single IRB review and select the best ethics committee. Regional ethics committees can gradually take responsibility for the primary review in the multicenter ethics review model and ultimately contribute to improving the mechanism and efficiency of the ethics review.

A Call for Better, Not Faster, Research Ethics Committee Reviews in the Covid-19 Era

With the rapid spread of SARS‐CoV2 has come a rapid proliferation of clinical research studies, resulting in considerable strain on research ethics committees (RECS), which need to review study proposals. RECs are pressured to move through the review process quickly so that studies can get underway to address the pandemic. These committees are also asked to increase efficiency without relaxing the standards for ethical review. RECs are accustomed to external pressure for approval from investigators; however, in the Covid‐19 era, this pressure is coming from not only the sponsors and investigators but also many other stakeholders, including world leaders, the community, the media, and professional organizations. Drawing on the authors' experiences on a central REC reviewing complex multicenter Covid‐19 studies, this commentary describes challenges that are inherent to Covid‐19 research studies, such as the difficulty of obtaining informed consent from patients ill with the highly infectious virus. The commentary recommends several steps that RECs can take to ensure ethical review of research studies during the Covid‐19 pandemic and future infectious disease outbreaks.

Stakeholder Experiences with the Single IRB Review Process and Recommendations for Food and Drug Administration Guidance

The revised Common Rule requires using a single institutional review board (sIRB) for U.S.-based, multisite, nonexempt, federally conducted or supported research with human participants. The 21st Century Cures Act directs the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to harmonize differences between HHS and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations governing research with humans. Anticipating that the FDA may update its 2006 centralized IRB guidance, we conducted interviews with 34 stakeholders engaged in FDA-regulated clinical research to identify benefits and challenges of using sIRBs and to gather recommendations for revising the FDA's guidance. The main benefits were consistency and standardization, speed and efficiency, and streamlining and simplification. The main challenges were uncertainty at local institutions, including addressing local context; decreased timeliness of the research review process; variable processes; and insufficient communication. Several recommendations for FDA guidance focused on the local context and communication plans. Findings suggest that the sIRB review process may be gaining efficiency although challenges remain.

Safeguarding Participants in Psychiatric Genetic Research: Perspectives of Key Stakeholder Groups

Public trust in research depends on implementation of research protections. Genetic and psychiatric research may elicit "exceptionalism," the belief that these types of research deserve special protections. Genetic information has been viewed as different from other health information. Psychiatric research has been scrutinized based on concerns about the impact of psychiatric illness on individuals' abilities to make decisions. This study compared four stakeholder groups' attitudes toward research safeguards. Psychiatric genetic researchers and institutional review board chairs received structured surveys. Individuals with mental illness and family members participated in semistructured interviews. Paired sample t-tests were used to compare mean ratings of importance of safeguard procedures for genetic versus nongenetic research on physical versus mental illnesses. All groups provided higher ratings for the importance of safeguards for genetic research and for mental illness. Individuals with mental illness and family members rated the importance of safeguards more highly than researchers and chairs did. Results of generalized linear models showed significant effects of gender and ethnicity.