Investigators' successful strategies for working with institutional review boards

Research in Nursing and Health

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2013, Pages 478-486

  Cartwright, Juliana C ^a   Hickman, Susan E ^b   Nelson, Christine A ^a   Knafl, Kathleen A ^c  

^a OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

Human subjects protection; Human subjects research; Institutional review board; Qualitative; Research ethics

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ETHICS; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; MALE; MEDICAL RESEARCH; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PALLIATIVE THERAPY; PERSONNEL; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; PUBLIC RELATIONS; STANDARDS; TERMINAL CARE; UNITED STATES; ARTICLE; HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION; HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD; LEGAL ASPECT; QUALITATIVE; RESEARCH ETHICS; STANDARD;

ADULT; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; FEMALE; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PALLIATIVE CARE; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; TERMINAL CARE; UNITED STATES;

HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION; HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD; QUALITATIVE; RESEARCH ETHICS;

EID: 84891723419     PISSN: 01606891     EISSN: 1098240X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/nur.21553     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. Ayres, L., Kavanaugh, K., & Knafl, K. (2003). Within-case and across-case approaches to qualitative data analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 13, 871-883.
2. Bierer, B. E. (2011, October 13). Letter to the Honorable Kathleen Sebelius. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/sachrp/commsec/sachrpanprmcommentsfinal.pdf.pdf
3. Burman, W., Breese, P., Weis, S., Bock, N., Bernardo, J., Vernon, A., & Tuberculosis Trials Consortium. (2003). The effects of local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Controlled Clinical Trials, 24, 245-255.
4. Burris, S., & Moss, K. (2006). U.S. health researchers review their ethics review boards: A qualitative study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 39-58.
5. Carline, J. D., O'Sullivan, P. S., Gruppen, L. D., & Richardson-Nassif, K. (2007). Crafting successful relationships with the IRB. Academic Medicine, 82, S57-S60.
6. Christian, M. C., Goldberg, J. L., Killen, J., Abrams, J. S., McCabe, M. S., Mauer, J. K., & Wittes, R. E. (2002). A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 346, 1405-1408.
7. Communication scholars' narratives of IRB experiences. (2005). Journal of Applied Communication Research, 33, 204-230.
8. Fost, N., & Levine, R. J. (2007). The dysregulation of human subjects research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 298, 2196-2198.
9. Hickman, S. E., Cartwright, J. C., Nelson, C. A., & Knafl, K. (2012). Compassion and vigilance: Investigators' strategies to manage ethical concerns in palliative and end-of-life research. Journal of Palliative Medicine, 15, 880-889.
10. IBM. (2010). SPSS statistics professional [software]. Chicago, IL: IBM. Accessed at http://www-01.ibm.com/software/analytics/spss/products/statistics/
11. Keith-Spiegel, P., & Koocher, G. P. (2005). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit? Ethics & Behavior, 15, 339-349.
12. Keith-Spiegel, P., Koocher, G. P., & Tabachnick, B. (2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 67-82.
13. Klitzman, R. (2011). The ethics police? IRBs' views concerning their power. PLoS ONE, 6(12), e28773.
14. Larson, E., Bratts, T., Zwanziger, J., & Stone, P. (2004). A survey of IRB process in 68 hospitals. Journal of Nursing Scholarship, 36, 260-264.
15. Lorenz, K., Lynn, J., Morton, S. C., Mularski, R., Shugarman, L., Sun, V. M., ... Shekelle, P. G., (2004). End-of-life care and outcomes. Evidence report (Number 110). Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality. Retrieved from the National Center for Biotechnology Information website: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK37517/
16. Mansbach, J., Acholonu, U., Clark, S., & Camargo, C. A. (2007). Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol. Academic Emergency Medicine, 14, 377-380.
17. Menikoff, J. (2010). The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. The New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 1591-1593.
18. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. Washington, DC: DHEW Publication OS 78-0012.
20. Office for Human Research Protections from Research Risks. (2009). Title 45 Code of Federal regulations, Part 46. Department of Health and Human Services. National Institutes of Health Code of Federal Regulations. Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/policy/ohrpregulations.pdf
21. Over regulating can put subjects at risk. (2006, July 1). IRB Advisor, 6, 75-77.
22. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. (2011, December). Moral science: Protecting participants in human subjects research. Retrieved from http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf
23. Pritchard, I. (2011). How do IRB members make decisions? A review and research agenda. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(2), 31-46.
24. QSR International. (2010). NVivo version 8.0 [software]. Chicago, IL: IBM. www.qsrinternational.com/products_nvivo.aspx