Internal Review Boards
RSSArticles
-
IRBs Face Unique Ethics Questions About Big Data Research
There is a need for ethics review committees to improve oversight capacity for big data research, the authors of a recent paper argued. Researchers assessed the weaknesses of ethics review committees, some of which are not specific to big data research but could be exacerbated by it, and some that are specific to big data research.
-
IRBs Scrutinizing Remote Consent, Screening, and Participation in Study Protocols
It is critical to remember face-to-face contact remains the best way to conduct the process of informed consent. Remote processes should not be used as an alternative if face-to-face contact is safe and practical.
-
IRBs Face Unique Ethical Questions About Disaster Research
IRBs must consider the value of the research to advance science and reduce suffering. At the same time, IRBs must consider the potential for harm based on the unique vulnerabilities of disaster survivors in the aftermath.
-
Some Researchers Turn to Social Media Influencers for Help with Recruitment
To do this effectively, researchers must become familiar with the social media environment relevant to their study population, find the right influencers, and contact those people.
-
IRBs Now Expect More Diversity in Research Trials
Promoting equitable participation must not be at the cost of impeding research. But within an ethical framework beyond regulations, IRBs are evolving to address and accelerate equitable inclusion in research.
-
Needlessly Delayed IRB Approval Raises Ethical Concerns
Delayed study startup times obstruct the enrollment process for prospective participants in clinical trials with a therapeutic intent. That is an ethical concern. Delays in IRB approval hinder enrollment, data collection and analysis, and submissions to regulatory oversight agencies. It takes longer to learn if new therapies are effective and safe. Updated product labeling and product approvals are held up. This delays the opportunity for individuals and society at large to benefit from research.
-
Quality Improvement Project Reveals Reasons for Long IRB Approval Process
Researchers analyzed minutes of IRB meetings for 33 protocols that were approved in 2019. All 33 protocols required at least two full board reviews before approval. They also evaluated 244 protocols that were reviewed faster. Most delays were attributed to protocols that did not adequately describe the research. Some consent documents are incomprehensible to people without medical backgrounds. Safety risks, duration, and allocation of cost sometimes are unclear. All this requires feedback from the IRB, to which researchers must respond.
-
IRBs Scrutinizing Recruitment of Adolescents via Social Media
When recruiting adolescents online, investigators should think about how they would proceed if recruitment was conducted in person. Researchers would not be able to barge into an in-person group meeting without an invitation, just as they cannot post in a private Facebook group without the moderator’s permission.
-
IRBs Use Inconsistent Processes for Informed Consent with Non-English Speakers
Translations, interpretation services, and other necessary accommodations for non-English speakers need to be built into study budgets
-
IRBs Facing Ethically Controversial Questions on Brain Research
The field of brain research sounds a lot like science fiction, but human neural organoids, human neural transplants, and human-animal chimeras all are imminent realities. IRBs are going to be facing some difficult decisions on whether this research can proceed. The authors of a recent report examined these issues.