Redressing past wrongs: Changing the common rule to increase minority voices in research

American Journal of Public Health

Volumn 103, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2136-2140

  Rencher, William C ^a   Wolf, Leslie E ^b  

^a Georgia Watch   (United States)

^b GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AFRICAN AMERICAN; ARTICLE; COMMUNITY CARE; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT SELECTION; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; TRUST; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATION; PSYCHOLOGY;

AFRICAN AMERICANS; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; COMMUNITY NETWORKS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; PATIENT SELECTION; TRUST; UNITED STATES; VULNERABLE POPULATIONS;

EID: 84887315163     PISSN: 00900036     EISSN: 15410048     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2013.301356     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Garcia T, Hallquist S, Keppel K. Healthy People 2010 snapshot for the non-Hispanic Black population: progress toward targets, size of disparities, and changes in disparities. Available at: Http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/healthy-people/ hp2010/hp2010-snapshots.htm. Accessed September 29, 2012.
2. Kaiser Family Foundation. Black Americans and HIV/AIDS. 2013. Available at: Http://kff.org/disparities-policy/fact-sheet/black-americans-and-hiv-aids. Accessed September 24, 2013.
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Health disparities and inequalities report-United States. 2011. Available at: Http://www.cdc.gov/ minorityhealth/CHDIReport.html. Accessed September 29, 2012.
4. Sheikh A. Why are ethnic minorities under-represented in US research studies? PLoS Med. 2006;3(2):e49.
5. Fisher JA, Kalbaugh CA. Challenging assumptions about minority participation in US clinical research. Am J Public Health. 2011;101(12):2217- 222.
6. Jones JH. The Tuskegee legacy. AIDS and the Black community. Hastings Cent Rep. 1992;22(6):38-40.
7. Gamble VN. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J Public Health. 1997;87 (11):1773-1778.
8. Savitt TL. The use of Blacks for medical experimentation and demonstration in the Old South. J South Hist. 1982;48(3):331-348.
9. Buchanan DR, Miller FG. Justice and fairness in the Kennedy Krieger Institute lead paint study: The ethics of public health research on less expensive, less effective interventions. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(5):781-87.
10. Holloway KF. Accidental communities: race, emergency medicine, and the problem of polyheme. Am J Bioeth. 2006;6(3):7-17.
11. Katz RV, Green BL, Kressin NR, et al. Exploring the "legacy" of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: A follow-up study from the Tuskegee Legacy Project. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101(2):179-183.
12. Corbie-Smith G. The continuing legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for clinical investigation. Am J Med Sci. 1999;317(1):5-8.
13. US Department of Health and Human Services. Human subject research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Available at: Http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ pkg/FR-2011-07-26/html/2011-18792.htm. Accessed February 15, 2012.
14. Reverby SM. Examining Tuskegee: The Infamous Syphilis Study and Its Legacy. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; 2009.
15. Sellars B, Garza MA, Fryer CS, Thomas SB. Utilization of health care services and willingness to participate in future medical research: The role of race and social support. J Natl Med Assoc. 2010;102(9):776-786.
16. Chiu CT, Katz RV. Identifying the "vulnerables" in biomedical research: The vox populis from the Tuskegee Legacy Project. J Public Health Dent. 2011;71(3): 220-228.
17. Carmack HJ, Bates BR, Harter LM. Narrative constructions of health care issues and policies: The case of President Clinton's apology-by-proxy for the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. J Med Humanit. 2008;29(2):89-109.
18. Sunstein CR. Symposium: law, economics, and norms: on the expressive function of law. Univ PA Law Rev. 1996; 144:2021-2053.
19. McAdams RH. Symposium: new and critical approaches to law and economics (part II) norms theory: An attitudinal theory of expressive law. Oregon Law Rev. 2000;79(2):339-390.
20. King PA. Race, justice, and research. In: Kahn JP, Mastroianni AC, Sugarman J, eds. Beyond Consent: Seeking Justice in Research. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 1998:88-110.
21. Corbie-Smith G, Thomas SB, Williams MV, Moody-Ayers S. Attitudes and beliefs of African Americans toward participation in medical research. J Gen Intern Med. 1999;14(9):537-546.
22. Richardson LD, Rhodes R, Ragin DF, Wilets I. The role of community consultation in the ethical conduct of research without consent. Am J Bioeth. 2006;6(3):33-35; discussion 46-50.
23. Dickert NW, Sugarman J. Community consultation: not the problem-an important part of the solution. Am J Bioeth. 2006;6(3):26-28.
24. Morin SF, Maiorana A, Koester KA, Sheon NM, Richards TA. Community consultation in HIV prevention research: A study of community advisory boards at 6 research sites. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2003;33(4):513-520.
25. Collyar D. How have patient advocates in the United States benefited cancer research? Nat Rev Cancer. 2005;5:73-78.
26. De las Nueces D, Hacker K, DiGirolamo A, Hicks LS. A systematic review of community-based participatory research to enhance clinical trials in racial and ethnic minority groups. Health Serv Res. 2012;47(3, pt 2):1363-1386.
27. Enfield KB, Truwit JD. The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: balancing priorities. Respir Care. 2008;53(10):1330-1336.
28. Catania JA, Lo B, Wolf LE, et al. Survey of US boards that review mental health-related research. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2008;3(4):71-79.
29. Sengupta S, Lo B. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and nonscientist members of institutional review boards. Acad Med. 2003;78(2):212-218.
30. Candilis PJ, Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, et al. The silent majority: Who speaks at IRB meetings? IRB. 2012;34(4):15-20.
31. Andejeski Y, Bisceglio IT, Dickersin K, et al. Quantitative impact of including consumers in the scientific review of breast cancer research proposals. J Womens Health Gend Based Med. 2002;11(4):379-388.