Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

Q2 Social Sciences
Kimberley Serpico, Vasiliki Rahimzadeh, Emily E. Anderson, Luke Gelinas, Holly Fernandez Lynch
{"title":"Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?","authors":"Kimberley Serpico,&nbsp;Vasiliki Rahimzadeh,&nbsp;Emily E. Anderson,&nbsp;Luke Gelinas,&nbsp;Holly Fernandez Lynch","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500121","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs’ access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"44 2","pages":"26-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500121","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: 6

Abstract

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs’ access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.

Abstract Image

机构审查委员会使用外部专家:我们知道什么?
法规允许机构审查委员会(irb)在审查超出其成员所代表的专业知识范围的研究申请时寻求外部专家的帮助。然而,对于irb何时、为何以及如何与外部专家进行咨询,人们的理解并不充分,因为迄今为止,这一实践并不是任何已发表的文献或实证研究的主要焦点。这些问题对IRB质量有重要的影响。irb在不过度阻碍研究的情况下履行其保护研究参与者的使命的能力受到irb获取和使用正确类型的专业知识来审查具有挑战性的研究伦理、监管和科学问题的影响。通过审查允许内部审计委员会利用外部专家的能力的法规和标准,并通过审查与此相关的需求、战略、挑战和关注,我们确定了现有文献中的关键差距,并为未来的实证研究制定了议程。
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