发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

IRB最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
Reaping the Bounty of Publicly Available Clinical Trial Consent Forms. 收获可公开获得的临床试验同意书的恩惠。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-11-01
Holly Fernandez Lynch, Emily A Largent, Deborah A Zarin
{"title":"Reaping the Bounty of Publicly Available Clinical Trial Consent Forms.","authors":"Holly Fernandez Lynch,&nbsp;Emily A Largent,&nbsp;Deborah A Zarin","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public access to clinical trial consent forms, beyond those individuals involved in reviewing, conducting, or participating in a trial, has been notoriously poor, resulting in missed opportunities for empirical analysis and improvement, among other benefits. However, recent changes to the Common Rule and policies governing ClinicalTrials.gov promise to make trial consent forms more accessible to the public, including prospective trial participants, other trialists and IRBs, and those seeking to study research consent. Analysis of publicly available consent forms can facilitate development of best practices, make the process of drafting consent forms more efficient, and provide insight into how well consent forms are satisfying their mission of protecting and promoting the autonomy of trial participants. Gaps in public access will remain even under the new policies, but we are on the cusp of an exciting new dataset that can contribute to addressing a perpetual challenge in research ethics: optimal informed consent.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5985974/pdf/nihms911117.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36204608","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Reining in IRB Review in the Revised Common Rule. 在修订的共同规则中控制内部审查委员会的审查。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-11-01
Carl H Coleman
{"title":"Reining in IRB Review in the Revised Common Rule.","authors":"Carl H Coleman","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The revised Common Rule contains several changes designed to reduce the time institutional review boards (IRBs) spend on overseeing low-risk studies, including an expansion of the categories of research that are exempt from the regulations and a list of specific activities that do not satisfy the regulatory definition of \"research.\" While these changes go a long way toward the goal of reducing unnecessarily regulatory burden, they leave several important questions about IRB jurisdiction unresolved.  The most significant omission is the failure to address when IRB review is necessary for quality assurance activities.  In addition, the revised Common Rule's distinction between \"research\" and \"public health surveillance\" may prove to be unworkable as applied to some types of public health activities.  Many of these interpretive questions stem from the inherent ambiguities in the regulatory definition of research, which turns on whether an activity is \"designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.\" Because the revised Common Rule does not alter this basic definition, difficult questions about the circumstances in which IRB review is required are likely to remain.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36918502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Reasonable Research Oversight: A Work in Progress. 合理的研究监督:一项正在进行的工作。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-09-01
Suzanne M Rivera
{"title":"Reasonable Research Oversight: A Work in Progress.","authors":"Suzanne M Rivera","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>On January 19, 2017, the Office for Human Research Protections, released an updated \"Common Rule\" that was the product of a six-year administrative odyssey to modernize and improve the regulations that had been in place for more than thirty years.  Although the impulse to update the regulatory landscape for human research is laudable, some of the changes proposed appear reactive and focused on making misconduct more difficult, rather than facilitating important science with reasonable safeguards. Instead of making research more difficult for all scientists across the board, a more sensible approach would involve better education of the public about the ways their specimens and data may be used to advance important scientific discoveries coupled with a legitimate method for holding bad actors accountable for deliberate violations of the rules. Regardless of what happens with the Common Rule, we need a reframing of research as a social good that requires reasonable oversight, not reactive rule making.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36966559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates. 一项比较国家癌症研究所原始和修订的同意书模板的随机对照研究。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-09-01
Holly A Masset, Michelle Hiser, Nancy L Atkinson, Christine Brittle, Robert Bailey, Jeanne Adler, Grace E Mishkin, Andrea M Denicoff, Nancy Roach, Marjorie Good, Danielle Burgess, Lorna Patrick, Margaret Mooney, Jeffrey S Abrams
{"title":"A Randomized Controlled Study Comparing the National Cancer Institute's Original and Revised Consent Form Templates.","authors":"Holly A Masset,&nbsp;Michelle Hiser,&nbsp;Nancy L Atkinson,&nbsp;Christine Brittle,&nbsp;Robert Bailey,&nbsp;Jeanne Adler,&nbsp;Grace E Mishkin,&nbsp;Andrea M Denicoff,&nbsp;Nancy Roach,&nbsp;Marjorie Good,&nbsp;Danielle Burgess,&nbsp;Lorna Patrick,&nbsp;Margaret Mooney,&nbsp;Jeffrey S Abrams","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since 1998, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has mandated that researchers use its consent form template in developing consent forms for their NCI-funded clinical trials. The template was substantially revised in 2013 to aid in the development of simpler, more concise consent forms. The NCI conducted a randomized controlled trial with cancer survivors (N = 153) to assess the revised template's effect on individuals' knowledge, satisfaction, clarity, and likelihood of joining a trial in the future. We found that the revised template resulted in equally high knowledge and satisfaction scores as the original template, but with fewer words and pages. The likelihood that an individual would participate in a trial diminished after he or she reviewed either the original or revised consent form, yet having knowledge about trials before reviewing the consent forms resulted in increased satisfaction. To ensure an informed decision-making process, we recommend using the revised NCI consent form template along with using educational interventions aimed at increasing the understanding potential participants have of a trial before they receive a consent form.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36904514","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Understanding, Therapeutic Misconceptions and Perceptions, and Enrollment Decision-Making: A Pediatric Preventive Malaria Trial in Rural Tanzania. 理解，治疗误解和认知，和入组决策:坦桑尼亚农村儿童预防疟疾试验。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-09-01
Rose Mwangi, Paul Ndebele, Ann Mongoven
{"title":"Understanding, Therapeutic Misconceptions and Perceptions, and Enrollment Decision-Making: A Pediatric Preventive Malaria Trial in Rural Tanzania.","authors":"Rose Mwangi,&nbsp;Paul Ndebele,&nbsp;Ann Mongoven","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study entailed conducting extensive qualitative interviews of mothers who had been invited to have their infants participate in the Kilimanjaro Intermittent Preventive Treatment of Malaria in Infants (Kili IPTi) trial, designed to assess the efficacy of intermittent preventive malaria chemoprophylaxis for infants. Our study sought to explore whether there was a relationship between the mothers' understanding of the research and the decision to enroll their infants or to decline. Such empirical data is necessary to address widely voiced concerns that limited understanding of research or exploitive inducement may undermine informed consent among clinical trial recruits in developing countries. The most striking result of the study was that, in general, those who declined to have their children participate in the trial had a better understanding of the trial than those who agreed to have their children participate. Decliners were more likely to understand the experimental nature of the trial and were less likely to confuse research with treatment, the conceptual error often labeled \"therapeutic misconception.\" Notably, in the context of the Kili IPTi trial, perception of clinical benefit may have been an accurate perception rather than therapeutic misconception because ancillary clinical benefits were provided to research participants. Neither participants nor decliners cited \"altruistic\" reasons for their decisions, despite presumptions among some scholars that such reasons are ethically the most appropriate motivations for participation in clinical research.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36904515","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Paying Research Participants: The Outsized Influence of "Undue Influence". 付费研究参与者:“不当影响”的超大影响。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-07-01
Emily A Largent, Holly Fernandez Lynch
{"title":"Paying Research Participants: The Outsized Influence of \"Undue Influence\".","authors":"Emily A Largent,&nbsp;Holly Fernandez Lynch","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5640154/pdf/nihms877093.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35614006","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception. 医疗实践研究:患者为何考虑参与和调查误解。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-07-01
Stephanie A Kraft, Kathryn M Porter, Diane M Korngiebel, Cyan James, Melissa Constantine, Maureen Kelley, Alexander M Capron, Douglas Diekema, Sandra Soo-Jin Lee, Mildred K Cho, David Magnus, Benjamin S Wilfond
{"title":"Research on Medical Practices: Why Patients Consider Participating and the Investigational Misconception.","authors":"Stephanie A Kraft,&nbsp;Kathryn M Porter,&nbsp;Diane M Korngiebel,&nbsp;Cyan James,&nbsp;Melissa Constantine,&nbsp;Maureen Kelley,&nbsp;Alexander M Capron,&nbsp;Douglas Diekema,&nbsp;Sandra Soo-Jin Lee,&nbsp;Mildred K Cho,&nbsp;David Magnus,&nbsp;Benjamin S Wilfond","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Understanding how patients decide whether to enroll in research can help improve educational materials, protocols, and recruitment rates. However, little is known about patients' willingness to participate in research on medical practices (ROMP), or studies comparing interventions within usual care. We assessed willingness to consider participating in ROMP by surveying 1095 adults in the United States, of whom 834 answered at least one open-ended question about their reasons for being willing or unwilling to consider participating in two scenarios involving ROMP. Most respondents were willing to consider participating in the research scenarios. The most commonly cited reasons for being willing to consider participating included benefit to others and oneself; the top reasons for being unwilling to consider participating included belief that the research was unsafe and an unfavorable view of experimentation. Responses also revealed misconceptions about ROMP among both those who were willing and unwilling to consider participating. Because these misconceptions may present an obstacle to recruiting participants in ROMP, there may be a need for educational initiatives to clarify the nature of these types of studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7374557/pdf/nihms-1592791.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36689417","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Adolescent Sexual Behavior Research: Perspectives of Investigators, IRB Members, and IRB Staff about Risk Categorization and IRB Approval. 青少年性行为研究：研究者、IRB 成员和 IRB 工作人员对风险分类和 IRB 批准的看法。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-07-01
Kyle A McGregor, Devon J Hensel, Amy C Waltz, Elizabeth Molnar, Mary A Ott
{"title":"Adolescent Sexual Behavior Research: Perspectives of Investigators, IRB Members, and IRB Staff about Risk Categorization and IRB Approval.","authors":"Kyle A McGregor, Devon J Hensel, Amy C Waltz, Elizabeth Molnar, Mary A Ott","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5703197/pdf/nihms919951.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35650353","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Reducing Consent Form Length: Stakeholder Support, Evidence-Based Strategies, and Regulatory Requirements. 缩短同意书长度:利益相关者支持、循证策略和监管要求。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-03-01
Amy Corneli, Jeremy Sugarman
{"title":"Reducing Consent Form Length: Stakeholder Support, Evidence-Based Strategies, and Regulatory Requirements.","authors":"Amy Corneli, Jeremy Sugarman","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10637749/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9924980","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Guinea Phase III Ebola Vaccine Trial: Lessons for Research Ethics Review in Public Health Emergencies. 几内亚三期埃博拉疫苗试验:突发公共卫生事件中研究伦理审查的经验教训。
IRB Pub Date : 2017-03-01
Reidar K Lie, David Wendler
{"title":"The Guinea Phase III Ebola Vaccine Trial: Lessons for Research Ethics Review in Public Health Emergencies.","authors":"Reidar K Lie,&nbsp;David Wendler","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":73513,"journal":{"name":"IRB","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"36432010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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