The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Volumn 7, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-8

  Lidz, Charles W ^a   Simon, Lorna J ^a   Seligowski, Antonia V ^b   Myers, Suzanne ^a   Gardner, William ^c   Candilis, Philip J ^a   Arnold, Robert ^d   Appelbaum, Paul S ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^b VA BOSTON HEALTHCARE SYSTEM   (United States)

^c OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^e Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons ^*  (United States)

Author keywords

Bioethics; Community member; IRB; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONSUMER; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; REVIEW; ROLE PLAYING; UNITED STATES; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ACADEMIC MEDICAL CENTERS; ADULT; COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP; CONSUMER PARTICIPATION; ETHICS COMMITTEES; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; ROLE; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84858053117     PISSN: 15562646     EISSN: 15562654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.1     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Anderson, E. E. (2006). A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members. Accountability in Research, 13(2), 135-155.
2. Candilis, P., Lidz, C., Appelbaum, P., Arnold, R., Gardner, W., Garverich, S., & Simon, L. (in press). The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB: Ethics & Human Research.
3. Curran, W. (1969). Government regulation of the use of human subjects in research: The approach of two federal agencies. Daedelus, 98(2), 542-594.
4. Dresser, R. (2008). The role of patient advocates and public representatives in research. In E. Emanual, C. Grady, R. Crouch, R. Lie, F. Miller, & D. Wendler (Eds.), The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics (pp. 231-241). New York: Oxford University Press.
5. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). Institutional review boards: Report and recommendations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
6. Porter, J. (1987). A qualitative study of non-affiliated, nonscientist institutional review board members. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research, 9(6), 1-6.
7. Rabe-Hesketh, S. & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata, second edition. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
8. Schuppli, C. & Fraser, D. (2007). Factors influencing the effectiveness of research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 33(5), 294-301.
9. Sengupta, S. & Lo, B. (2003). The roles and experiences of non-affiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 212-218. (Pubitemid 36268295)
10. Veatch, R. (1975). Human experiment committees: Professional or representative? Hastings Center Report, 5(5), 31-40.
11. Wallwork, E. (2003). Failed community representation: Does the process inhibit full IRB participation by community representatives? Protecting Human Subjects, 9(4), 14.