Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review

Q2 Social Sciences
Stephanie R. Morain, Megan K. Singleton, Kate Tsiandoulas, Juli Bollinger, Jeremy Sugarman
{"title":"Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review","authors":"Stephanie R. Morain,&nbsp;Megan K. Singleton,&nbsp;Kate Tsiandoulas,&nbsp;Juli Bollinger,&nbsp;Jeremy Sugarman","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500215","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"46 4","pages":"17-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500215","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.

单一 IRB 审查和地方背景考虑因素:范围审查。
联邦政策现在要求对多地点研究进行单个 IRB(sIRB)审查,其中一个主要问题是,sIRB 在审查中是否以及如何考虑当地背景。虽然已经提出了几种考虑当地背景的方法,但对于当地背景审查的目标和内容,以及 SIRB 审查可能不合适的研究类型,负责人类受试者研究伦理监督的人员并没有达成一致意见。通过对已发表的学术论文、公众评论和联邦指导文件进行范围界定,我们确定了当地背景审查的五个假定目标:保护当地参与者的权利和福利;确保遵守适用的法律和政策;评估可行性;提高研究质量;以及促进程序公正。虽然提出的相关内容多种多样,但主要分为四个领域:人口/参与者层面的特征;研究者和研究团队的特征;机构层面的特征;以及州和地方法律。建议排除在 sIRB 要求之外的特征反映了基于保护和效率的考虑。这些发现可以为当前评估强制 sIRB 审查政策的影响以及何时适合对这些政策进行例外处理的工作提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信