Author
Listed:
- Shore, N.
- Brazauskas, R.
- Drew, E.
- Wong, K.A.
- Moy, L.
- Baden, A.C.
- Cyr, K.
- Ulevicus, J.
- Seifer, S.D.
Abstract
Objectives: Institutional review boards (IRBs), designed to protect individual study participants, do not routinely assess community consent, risks, and benefits. Community groups are establishing ethics review processes to determine whether and how research is conducted in their communities. To strengthen the ethics review of community-engaged research, we sought to identify and describe these processes. Methods: In 2008 we conducted an online survey of US-based community groups and community-institutional partnerships involved in human-participants research. We identified 109 respondents who met participation criteria and had ethics review processes in place. Results: The respondents' processes mainly functioned through community-institutional partnerships, community-based organizations, community health centers, and tribal organizations. These processes had been created primarily to ensure that the involved communities were engaged in and directly benefited from research and were protected from research harms. The primary process benefits included giving communities a voice in determining which studies were conducted and ensuring that studies were relevant and feasible, and that they built community capacity. The primary process challenges were the time and resources needed to support the process. Conclusions: Community-based processes for ethics review consider community-level ethical issues that institution-based IRBs often do not.
Suggested Citation
Shore, N. & Brazauskas, R. & Drew, E. & Wong, K.A. & Moy, L. & Baden, A.C. & Cyr, K. & Ulevicus, J. & Seifer, S.D., 2011.
"Understanding community-based processes for research ethics review: A national study,"
American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 101(SUPPL. 1), pages 359-364.
Handle:
RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2010.194340_9
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2010.194340
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2010.194340_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.