A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members

Accountability in Research

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 135-155

  Anderson, Emily E ^a  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Community irb members; Human subjects protection; Institutional review boards; Irb membership composition; Non affiliated irb members; Non scientist irb members

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CONSUMER; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; NONBIOLOGICAL MODEL; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; EMPIRICAL APPROACH;

COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS; MIDWESTERN UNITED STATES; MODELS, ORGANIZATIONAL;

EID: 33746234718     PISSN: 08989621     EISSN: 15455815     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08989620600654027     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. 45 C.F.R. 46 (2005).
2. Annas, G. (1996). Questing for grails: Duplicity, betrayal, and self-deception in postmodern medical research. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy, 12(2):297-324.
3. Bauer, P. E. (2001). A few simple truths about your community IRB members. IRB: Ethics & Human Subjects Research, 23(1):7-8.
4. Bell, J., Whiton, J., and Connelly, S. (1998). Final report: Evaluation of NIH implementation of section 491 of the Public Health Service Act, mandating a program of protection for research subjects. Report prepared under a National Institutes of Health Contract, NDI-OD-2-2109. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
5. Cho, M., and Billings, P. (1997). Conflict of interest and institutional review boards. Journal of Investigative Medicine, 45(4):154-159.
6. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (DHHS). (1998a). Institutional Review Boards: A Time for Reform. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.
7. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (DHHS). (1998b). Institutional Review Boards: Promising Approaches. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.
8. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (DHHS). (1998c). Institutional Review Boards: Their Role in Reviewing Approved Research. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.
9. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General (DHHS). (2000). Protecting Human Research Subjects: Status of Recommendations. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General.
10. DeVries, R., and Forsberg, C. P. (2002a). What do IRBs look like? What kind of support do they receive? Accountability in Research, 9(3-4):199-216.
11. DeVries, R., and Forsberg, C. P. (2002b). Who decides? A look at ethics committee membership, HEC Forum 14(3):252-258.
12. Dresser, R. (2001). When Science Offers Salvation: Patient Advocacy and Research Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Hayes, G., Hayes, S., and Dykstra, T. (1995). A survey of university institutional review boards: Characteristics, policies, and procedures. IRB: Ethics & Human Subjects Research, 17(3): 1-6.
14. Karlawish, J. (1998). Building right reason in the republic of science: Why we must include community values in the design and conduct of clinical research, PennBioethics 5(2): 1-2, 7.
15. Knafl, K., and Webster, D. (1998). Managing and analyzing qualitative data. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 10(2): 195-218.
16. Lombardo, P. (1999). New faces on the IRB: Who speaks for subjects? BioLaw 1999 Suppl (428-431).
17. MacQueen, K., McLellan, E., Metzger, D., Kegeles, S., Strauss, R., Scotti, R., Blanchard, L., and Trotter, R. T. (2001). What is community? An evidencebased definition for public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12):1929-1938.
18. McNeill, P. M. (1993). The Ethics and Politics of Human Experimentation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19. Morse, J. (1995) The significance of saturation [editorial], Qualitative Health Research, 5(2):147-149.
20. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). (1999). Research Involving Persons with Mental Disorders That May Affect Decisionmaking Capacity. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
21. National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). (2001). Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission.
22. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (National Commission). (1978). Report and Recommendations, Institutional Review Boards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
23. Peckman, S. (2001). Local institutional review boards. In National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Appendix K. Commissioned Papers and Staff Analysis. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Research Commission.
24. Penslar, R. L. (1993). Institutional Review Board Guidebook. Office for Human Research Protections. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/irb/irb_guidebook.htm. (Accessed January 20, 2006).
25. Porter, J. (1986). What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members, IRB: Ethics & Human Subjects Research, 8(3):1-6.
26. Porter, J. (1987). How unaffiliated/non-scientist members of Institutional Review Boards see their roles, IRB: Ethics & Human Subjects Research, 9(6):1-6.
27. President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research (President's Commission). (1983). Implementing Human Research Regulations: Second biennial report on the adequacy and uniformity of federal rules and policies, and of their implementation for the protection of human subjects.
28. Sengupta, S., and Lo, B. (2003). The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards, Academic Medicine, 78(2):212-218.
29. Veatch, R. (1975). Human experimentation committees: Professional or representative? Hastings Center Report, 5(5):31-40.