Measuring the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2019, Pages 187-189

  Tsan, Min Fu ^a  

^a McGuire Research Institute   (United States)

Author keywords

human subject protections; IRB performance; IRB quality; performance measurement; quality of IRB reviews

Indexed keywords

HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HUMAN; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD;

ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; HUMANS; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE;

EID: 85058561427     PISSN: 15562646     EISSN: 15562654     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1556264618804686     Document Type: Article

References (15)

1. Abbott L., Grady C. A., (2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3-19.
2. Anderson J. A., Sawatzky-Girling B., McDonald M., Willison D. J., (2011). Research ethics broadly writ: Beyond REB review. Health Law Review, 19(3), 12-24.
3. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. (2018). Accreditation standards. Retrieved from http://www.aahrpp.org/apply/web-document-library/domain-i-organization
4. Cassel C. K., Conway P. H., Delbanco S. F., Jha A. K., Saunders R. S., Lee T. H., (2014). Getting more performance from performance measurement. The New England Journal of Medicine, 371, 2145-2147.
5. Gearhart C., (2018). Seeking the holy grail of IRB quality. Retrieved from https://www.quorumreview.com/seeking-the-holy-grail-choosing-the-right-irb/
6. Institute of Medicine. (2001). Preserving public trust: Accreditation and human research participant protection programs. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
7. Lidz C. W., Appelbaum P. S., Arnold R., Candilis P., Gardner W., Myers S., Simon L. J., (2012). How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine, 87, 969-974.
8. 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: Government Printing Office.
9. Nicholls S. G., Hayes T. P., Brehaut J. C., McDonald M., Weijer C., Saginur R., Fergusson D., (2015). A scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PLoS ONE, 10(7), e0133639. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0133639
10. Taylor H. A., (2007). Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 29(5), 9-14.
11. Tsan M.-F., (2017). Assessing the quality of human research protection programs. Beau Bassin-Rose Hill, Mauritius: Scholars’ Press.
12. Tsan M.-F., Nguyen Y., (2017). Effectiveness of human research protection program performance measurements. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12, 217-228.
13. Tsoka-Gwegweni J. M., Wassenaar D., (2014). Using the Emanuel et al. framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics committee in South Africa. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(5), 36-45.
14. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1991). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects (45 Code of Federal Registration [CFR] 46). Retrieved from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/index.html
15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. (1998). Institutional review boards: A time for reform. Retrieved from https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-97-00193.pdf