Health service research: The square peg in human subjects protection regulations

Journal of Medical Ethics

Volumn 37, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 118-122

  Gittner, L S ^a   Roach, M J ^b   Kikano, G ^c   Grey, S ^d   Dawson, N V ^b  

^a CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b METROHEALTH MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^d KENT STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ETHICS; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMAN; INFORMED CONSENT; LEGAL ASPECT; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 79151474125     PISSN: 03066800     EISSN: 14734257     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/jme.2010.037226     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Newgard CD, Hui SH, Stamps-White P, et al. Institutional variability in a minimal risk, population-based study: recognizing policy barriers to health services research. Health Serv Res 2005;40:1247-58.
2. Protection of Human Subjects. In: Subjects Health and Human Subjects, ed. 5 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations 301; 42 U.S.C. 289, 42 U.S.Code of Federal Regulations 300v-1(b). Vol Title 45-Public Welfare PART 46. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations; 1991 at http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&tpl=%2Findex.tpl (Accessed Jun 1 2010).
3. Amdur R. The Institutional Review Board Member Handbook. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers, 2003.
4. Willison DJ, Emerson C, Szala-Meneok KV, et al. Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards. J Med Ethics 2008;34:308-14.
5. Baily MA. Harming through protection? N Engl J Med 2008;358:768-9.
6. Coleman CH, Bouesseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? the neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics 2008;9:6.
7. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, et al. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res 2006;41:214-30.
8. Babor T, de la Fuente J, Saunders J, et al. AUDIT The Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test: Guidelines for use in Primary Health Care. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1992.
9. el-Guebaly N, Armstrong SJ, Hodgins DC. Substance abuse and the emergency room: programmatic implications. J Addict Dis 1998;17:21-40.
10. Neushotz LA, Fitzpatrick JJ. Improving substance abuse screening and intervention in a primary care clinic. Arch Psychiatr Nurs 2008;22:78-86.
11. Yoast RA, Wilford BB, Hayashi SW. Encouraging physicians to screen for and intervene in substance use disorders: obstacles and strategies for change. J Addict Dis 2008;27:77-97.
12. Saunders JB, Aasland OG, Babor TF, et al. Development of the Alcohol UseDisorders Identification Test (AUDIT): WHO Collaborative Project on Early Detection of Persons with Harmful Alcohol ConsumptioneII. Addiction. 1993;88:791-804.
13. Lynn J, Baily MA, Bottrell M, et al. The ethics of using quality improvement methods in health care. Ann Intern Med 2007;146:666-73.
14. Elliott L, Hunter D. The Experiences of Ethics Committee Members: Contradictions between Individuals and Committees. Cromore, Ulster, Ireland: School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Ulster, 2007.
15. AcademyHealth. What is Health Service Research? Washington, DC: AcademyHealth, 2000. http://www.academyhealth.org/about/whatishsr.htm (accessed 20 Mar 2008).
16. Gold JL, Dewa CS. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005;40:291-307.
17. Greene SM, Geiger AM, Harris EL, et al. Impact of IRB requirements on a multicenter survey of prophylactic mastectomy outcomes. Ann Epidemiol 2006;16:275-8.
18. Wolf LE, Walden JF, Lo B. Human subjects issues and IRB review in practice-based research. Ann Fam Med 2005;3(Suppl 1):S30-7.
19. Angell EL, Bryman A, Ashcroft RE, et al. An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. Qual Saf Health Care 2008;17:131-6.
20. Patenaude J, Grant AM, Xhignesse M, et al. Evaluation of clinical innovation: a gray zone in the ethics of modern clinical practice? J Gen Intern Med 2008;23 (Suppl 1):27-31.
21. Huang DT, Hadian M. Bench-to-bedside review: human subjects researcheare more standards needed? Crit Care 2006;10:244.
22. Greene SM, Geiger AM. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. J Clin Epidemiol 2006;59:784-90.
23. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, et al. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. Jama 2003;290:360-6.
24. Stair TO, Reed CR, Radeos MS, et al. Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard protocol for a multicenter clinical trial. Acad Emerg Med 2001;8:636-41.