Search

Serious and continuing research noncompliance and integrity violations undermine the quality of research and trust in science. When researchers engage in these behaviors, institutional officials (IOs) often develop corrective action plans. Ideally, such plans address the root causes so noncompliance or research integrity violations discontinue. The aim of this study was to identify what IOs perceive as causes and action plan activities typically prescribed. We conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 47 IOs at research institutions across the U.S. including: institutional review board and institutional animal care and use committee chairs and directors, chief research officers, research compliance and integrity officers, and institutional conflicts of interest chairs and directors. The most common root causes identified were: 1) lack of knowledge or training, 2) failure to provide research team supervision, and 3) researcher attitudes toward compliance. The most common action plan activities include: 1) retraining in compliance or research integrity, 2) follow-up and hands-on involvement with the researcher, and 3) mandated oversight or mentoring. Because the most commonly identified action plan activities fail to adequately address the majority of root causes, our findings suggest a need for IOs to rethink existing approaches to action plan development to more effectively target root causes.

In February 2023, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released another report acknowledging that we still lack meaningful, validated, widely-accepted measures for evaluating institutional review board (IRB) quality and effectiveness. This challenge is well known to the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (www.AEREO.org), a collaborative group of human research protection (HRP) professionals, researchers, and research ethicists founded in 2018 to do precisely what GAO recommends: examine approaches for measuring IRB effectiveness in protecting human subjects, and implement the approaches as appropriate. Two underlying tenets have been central to AEREO's as approach to thinking about IRB quality and effectiveness: (1) IRBs exist to protect participants and thus the participant perspective should be central to all IRBs do; and (2) because IRBs are tasked with applying subjective ethical and regulatory standards about which people may disagree, their approach and decisions should at least meet the basic standard of reasonableness in terms of accounting for relevant perspectives, considering key factors, and providing defensible justifications. Critical to each of these tenets, IRBs should include diverse perspectives in their deliberations, find ways to meaningfully engage with relevant communities about their views regarding ethical research and appropriate participant protections, and be accountable to the public.

Practitioners aim to improve healthcare systems and clinical care through a variety of activities as part of a learning healthcare system. Yet the distinction between projects requiring Research Ethics Board (REB) approval or not is becoming increasingly blurred, making it difficult for researchers and others to classify projects and then navigate the required compliance pathway appropriately. To address this challenge, the Provincial Health Services Authority (PHSA) of British Columbia (BC) created a decision tool called the "PHSA Project Sorter Tool" to serve its diverse community while also meeting the unique needs of the BC regulatory and policy environment. The goal of the tool was to standardize and clarify organizational project review and ensure project leads were referred to the appropriate review body or service provider within the PHSA in the most efficient manner possible. In this paper, we describe the ethics needs assessment that was conducted to inform the tool and the results of our ongoing evaluation of the tool since it was launched in January, 2020. Our project shows that this simple tool can reduce burdens on staff and provide clarity to users by standardizing processes and terms and directing users to appropriate internal resources.

The words integrity, ethics, and governance are used interchangeably in relation to research. This masks important differences that must be understood when trying to address concerns regarding research culture. While progress has been made in identifying negative aspects of research culture (such as inequalities in hiring/promotion, perverse incentives, etc.) and practical issues that lead to research waste (outcome reporting bias, reproducibility, etc.), the responsibility for addressing these problems can be unclear due to the complexity of the research environment. One solution is to provide a clearer distinction between the perspectives of "Research Integrity," "Research Ethics," and "Research Governance." Here, it is proposed that Research Integrity should be understood as focused on the character of researchers, and consequently the responsibility for promoting it lies primarily with researchers themselves. This is a different perspective from Research Ethics, which is focused on judgments on the ethical acceptability of research, and should primarily be the responsibility of research ethics committees, often including input from the public as well as the research community. Finally, Research Governance focuses on legal and policy requirements, and although complementary to research integrity and ethics, is primarily the responsibility of expert research support officers with the skills and experience to address technical compliance.

This paper presents the structuring dimensions of the CEP-Conep System in order to understand the actions promoted by the National Research Ethics Commission in response to demands for the processing and ethical analysis of research protocols related to COVID-19 in 2020. Based on CEP-Conep System public documents, an assessment of legislation, from 1988 to 2020, and its extension in terms of the number of Committees, users, and protocols, from 2012 to 2020 was presented. The minutes of Conep's Ordinary Meetings (RO), for 2020, of a confidential nature, were analyzed, to verify adaptations to the pandemic. At the end of 2020, the System had 844 Committees, 854,741 users, and 701,791 analyzed protocols. The Commission centralized the analysis of COVID-19 protocols, in January 2020, and promoted three decentralizations, as more knowledge was generated, with vaccine protocols for COVID-19 remaining centralized. The history of the CEP-Conep System provided ballast for the adoption of management, educational and communication measures that accelerated the approval of protocols and made the process transparent. The absence of indicators made it impossible to evaluate the performance in 2020, which was apparently satisfactory.

Research ethics and integrity are essential topics that researchers should always be concerned about and are emphasized by academic communities around the world. However, there is currently little information about the mechanisms to regulate research ethics and integrity in Thailand. Therefore, the aims of this study were to determine the approaches that universities used to support research ethics and integrity in Thailand and also to identify the barriers that may obstruct the development. A questionnaire was used to explore the strategies about research ethics of 44 Thai universities. It was found that the first three mechanisms used to foster research ethics and integrity were establishment of institutional regulatory research committees (84%), conduction of research ethics training programs (77%), and policy adoption (68%). Interestingly, there was a significant association between the sizes of universities and establishment of institutional regulatory research committees. The medium and small universities might need more support to develop their own research ethics regulatory mechanisms. The results here indicated good signs for Thailand about preparing basic structures for fostering research ethics and integrity. The recognition of this current status could provide the useful information for future development of research integrity in Thailand.

Community-engaged research often poses challenges due to exactly those qualities that make it desirable: it provides a new model of research that differs in many ways from top-down, university-led, prospectively designed approaches. While many have discussed the challenges to conducting community-engaged research, few have provided precise and generalizable lessons for how to surmount these challenges. Here we discuss the challenges experienced in a project that was community-engaged at three levels: 1) a research team consisting of an academic and a community partner as well as a community and academic research assistant, 2) the research team engaged with a Community Advisory Board called the CBOP-CERB (Community Based Organization Partners-Community Ethics Research Board) throughout the project, and 3) the research involved recruiting community participants from an area with a historical distrust of researchers and research: Flint Michigan. We also discuss administrative challenges that this multilevel community-engagement posed. Most important, we provide practical lessons in order for future community-engaged research to avoid or mitigate many of these challenges.

In recognition of the importance of evaluation for funding, research, and quality improvement, a longstanding Community Advisory Board in Flint Michigan embarked on a process to evaluate their impact. The Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)-Community Ethics Review Board (CERB) engaged a research team composed of an academic researcher (Solomon Cargill) and a community partner (Spencer) to obtain funding, design and implement an evaluation of the CBOP-CERB. This evaluation study yielded two evaluations of the CBOP-CERB, one with researchers who had engaged with the CBOP-CERB and the other with Flint area community residents. The results of these two evaluations can serve to show other Community Advisory Boards how to establish and expand their impact, establish their worth for future funding, and how to articulate, evaluate, and achieve their goals.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: [EJ has received consulting fees from WHO and funding from The Wellcome Trust for research on the ethics of human challenge studies. CW receives consulting income from Cardialen, Eli Lilly & Company, and Research Triangle Institute International. MJS is he has received funding from The Wellcome Trust for previous research on the ethics of human challenge studies. No competing interests: SB,CE,GK,MK,KL,ER,CS,PGS, SS, RU]., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: With the global proliferation of the novel COVID-19 disease, conventionally conducting institutional review board (IRB) meetings has become a difficult task. Amid concerns about the suspension of drug development due to delays within IRBs, it has been suggested that IRB meetings should be temporarily conducted via the internet., Objective: This study aimed to elucidate the current status of IRB meetings conducted through web conference systems., Methods: A survey on conducting IRB meetings through web conference systems was administered to Japanese national university hospitals. Respondents were in charge of operating IRB offices at different universities. This study was not a randomized controlled trial., Results: The survey was performed at 42 facilities between the end of May and early June, 2020, immediately after the state of emergency was lifted in Japan. The survey yielded a response rate of 74% (31/42). Additionally, while 68% (21/31) of facilities introduced web conference systems for IRB meetings, 13% (4/31) of the surveyed facilities postponed IRB meetings. Therefore, we conducted a further survey of 21 facilities that implemented web conference systems for IRB meetings. According to 71% (15/21) of the respondents, there was no financial burden for implementing these systems, as they were free of charge. In 90% (19/21) of the facilities, IRB meetings through web conference systems were already being conducted with personal electronic devices. Furthermore, in 48% (10/21) of facilities, a web conference system was used in conjunction with face-to-face meetings., Conclusions: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of reviews in clinical trial core hospitals has decreased. This suggests that the development of pharmaceuticals has stagnated because of COVID-19. According to 71% (15/21) of the respondents who conducted IRB meetings through web conference systems, the cost of introducing such meetings was US $0, showing a negligible financial burden. Moreover, it was shown that online deliberations could be carried out in the same manner as face-to-face meetings, as 86% (18/21) of facilities stated that the number of comments made by board members did not change. To improve the quality of IRB meetings conducted through web conference systems, it is necessary to further examine camera use and the content displayed on members' screens during meetings. Further examination of all members who use web conference systems is required. Our measures for addressing the requests and problems identified in our study could potentially be considered protocols for future IRB meetings, when the COVID-19 pandemic has passed and face-to-face meetings are possible again. This study also highlights the importance of developing web conference systems for IRB meetings to respond to future unforeseen pandemics., (©Kenta Yagi, Kazuki Maeda, Satoshi Sakaguchi, Masayuki Chuma, Yasutaka Sato, Chikako Kane, Akiyo Akaishi, Keisuke Ishizawa, Hiroaki Yanagawa. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 19.11.2020.)

Background: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are well established at healthcare institutions in resource-rich countries. However, there is limited information on established CECs in resource poor countries, especially in Africa. This study aimed to establish baseline data regarding existing formal CECs in Africa to raise awareness of and to encourage the establishment of CECs or Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CESs) on the continent., Methods: A descriptive study was undertaken using an online questionnaire via SunSurveys to survey healthcare professionals and bioethicists in Africa. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and Fischer's exact test was applied to determine associations. Texts from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed., Results: In total 109 participants from 37 African countries completed the survey in December 2019. A significant association was found between participants' bioethics qualification or training and involvement in clinical ethics (p = 0.005). All participants were familiar with Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and initially conflated RECs with CECs. When CECs were explained in detail, approximately 85.3% reported that they had no formal CECs in their institutions. The constraints to developing CECs included lack of training, limited resources, and lack of awareness of CECs. However, the majority of participants (81.7%) were interested in establishing CECs. Participants listed assistance required in establishing CECs including funding, resources, capacity building and collaboration with other known CECs. The results do not reflect CECs established since the onset of COVID-19 in Africa., Conclusions: This study provides a first look into CECs in Africa and found very few formal CECs on the continent indicating an urgent need for the establishment of CECs or CESs in Africa. While the majority of healthcare professionals and bioethicists are aware of ethical dilemmas in healthcare, the concept of formal CECs is foreign. This study served to raise awareness of CECs. Research ethics and RECs overshadow CECs in Africa because international funders from the global north support capacity development in research ethics and establish RECs to approve the research they fund in Africa. Raising awareness via educational opportunities, research and conferences about CECs and their role in improving the quality of health care in Africa is sorely needed.

Behavioral researchers are increasingly using interactive digital platforms, either as standalone or supplementary intervention tools, to facilitate positive changes in research participants' health habits. Research-oriented interactive websites optimally offer a variety of participatory mediums, such as blogs, user-driven content, or health activities. Owing to the multidirectional features of interactive websites, and a corresponding need to protect research participants' identity and data, it is paramount that researchers design ethical platforms that ensure privacy and minimize loss of anonymity and confidentiality. Authentication (ie, digital verification of one's identity) of interactive sites is one viable solution to these concerns. Although previous publications have addressed ethical requirements related to authenticated platforms, few applied guidelines in the literature facilitate adherence to ethical principles and legally compliant study protocols during all phases of research website creation (feasibility, design, implementation, and maintenance). Notably, to remain compliant with ethical standards and study protocols, behavioral researchers must collaborate with interdisciplinary teams to ensure that the authenticated site remains secure and usable in all stages of the project. In this tutorial, we present a case study conducted at a large research university. Through iterative and practical recommendations, we detail lessons learned from collaborations with the Institutional Review Board, legal experts, and information technology teams. Although the intricacies of our applied tutorial may require adaptations based on each institution's technological capacity, we are confident that the core takeaways are universal and thus useful to behavioral researchers creating ethically responsible and compliant interactive websites., (©Christie L Martin, Eydie N Kramer-Kostecka, Jennifer A Linde, Sarah Friend, Vanessa R Zuroski, Jayne A Fulkerson. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 23.09.2020.)

The implementation of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can be accompanied by unique regulatory challenges. In this paper, we describe the experience and management of regulatory noncompliance during a 25-site acute care PCT. During the trial, the study team conducted a comprehensive audit of all enrollment forms (informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization forms) and related study documentation. A review of 997 participants' enrollment forms identified 138 (13.8%) that required reporting to the institutional review board due to noncompliance. To prevent subsequent noncompliance, the study team developed and introduced a revised participant tracking system, reviewed all enrollment documentation, and retrained sites regarding study procedures. Based on these experiences, we developed a set of recommendations for future PCTs to ensure both operational success and regulatory compliance., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) studies in health technology involve human beings and thus require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Yet HOF studies have specific constraints and methods that may not fit standard regulations and IRB practices. Gaining IRB approval may pose difficulties for HOF researchers. This paper aims to provide a first overview of HOF study challenges to get IRB review by exploring differences and best practices across different countries., Methods: HOF researchers were contacted by email to provide a testimony about their experience with IRB review and approval. Testimonies were thematically analyzed and synthesized to identify and discuss shared themes., Results: Researchers from seven European countries, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States answered the call. Four themes emerged that indicate shared challenges in legislation, IRB inefficiencies and inconsistencies, general regulation and costs, and lack of HOF study knowledge by IRB members. We propose a model for IRB review of HOF studies based on best practices., Conclusion: International criteria are needed that define low and high-risk HOF studies, to allow identification of studies that can undergo an expedited (or exempted) process from those that need full IRB review. Enhancing IRB processes in such a way would be beneficial to the conduct of HOF studies. Greater knowledge and promotion of HOF methods and evidence-based HOF study designs may support the evolving discipline. Based on these insights, training and guidance to IRB members may be developed to support them in ensuring that appropriate ethical issues for HOF studies are considered., Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work., (Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart.)

The number of research involving human subjects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is surging, bringing challenges to the ethical review committee (ERC) in terms of reviewing speed and special ethical considerations under the pandemic. However, the existing ethical review system and regulations have their limitations to meet the demand for a prompt and efficient epidemic control. Since the research under the public health emergency is different from that carried out in familiar situations to design and implementation, the strategy for a satisfactory ERC response should balance the duty of protecting individual participants as well as the special public needs derived from the disease control. It is suggested that the ethical review-related regulations need to be updated, and a unified supervision system to the overall ERC is required. ERC collaboration, capacity-improving and efficiency-improving measures need to be taken. With respect to the reviewing guidelines, it is suggested that the international norms should be explained with more consideration of the local condition and the exceptional circumstances in this public health emergency. A joint effort needs to be taken for better research conduction., (© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine published by Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.)

Background: Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function., Main Text: We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics., Conclusions: In this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.

Background: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands., Methods: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together., Results: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries., Conclusions: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales.

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

The objective of this commentary is to provide a framework and ethical justification for a more proactive model of continual, active monitoring of research. We outline what the increased monitoring should consist of, and the practical constraints associated with executing these monitoring functions. We also defend the idea that adequate post-initial-review monitoring requires greater REB involvement, rather than trust and researcher's assurances.

Pediatric drug development (PDD) became an industry goal when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted patent extensions. This was later expanded to obligations for pediatric studies and to the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) strict pediatric investigation plans (PIPs). Industry now sponsors many often international studies in young patients that are difficult or impossible to recruit. PDD's intellectual foundations characterize children as "therapeutic orphans," allegedly discriminated in drug treatment and development. While toxicities occured in newborns, demanding separate efficacy and safety (E&S) studies in all age groups is wasteful and reflects hidden conflicts of interest. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) successfully procured pediatric research funds; the FDA dislikes pediatric off-label use and envisions labels as instructions for physicians. Pediatricians have continuously improved child health care by careful use of available drugs. Instead of physiologically defining children vis-à-vis drug treatment, the FDA defines children as ≤16 years old, offering convincing pretense for the need for mostly senseless "pediatric" studies in young adults, adolescents, and children. Although these studies may help advance pediatric academic careers, they do not improve pediatric health care. The EMA defines children as <18 years old and demands even more senseless and potentially harmful "pediatric" studies. Young patients need pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic and dose finding, but not separate E&S, studies. Institutional review boards and ethics committees should suspend or reject questionable FDA/EMA-demanded "pediatric" studies. Industry and science need repositioning towards "PDD"; US/EU pediatric laws need revision. We hope this will not take decades.

Purpose: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are important ethical concerns because they may affect scientific decision making, research integrity, and the safety and fairness of studies. No research to date has examined COIs of single institutional review boards (sIRBs), which are now mandated by the National Institutes of Health, and will be by the revised Common Rule in 2020, for all multisite research. This study investigated how different types of sIRBs manage their own COIs by documenting existing processes for and comparing commercial, government, and academic sIRBs., Method: One hundred three personnel from 20 commercial, government, or academic sIRBs participated in semistructured interviews about their processes for and experiences with managing COIs when conducting multisite research review., Results: Variability in COI management policies exist across types of sIRBs. Commercial sIRBs were aware of their own COIs given their for-profit model, and managed them by using firewalls, relying on external reviewers, and turning down potential clients. Government sIRBs described unique COIs stemming from the same agency funding the sIRB and the research being reviewed. They addressed these by discussing concerns about COIs, using firewalls, relying on nonaffiliated reviewers, and having broad COI policies. In contrast to commercial and government sIRBs, academic sIRBs did not report any specific policies to manage their COIs, which are similar to those of local IRBs., Conclusions: As sIRBs become increasingly common, researchers will need to weigh the different COIs inherent to each type of sIRB. Additionally, academic sIRBs may consider implementing specific policies for managing their COIs.

Background: Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder., Methods: We created a "hub and spoke" model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the "hub," conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating "spoke" site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks., Results: A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6-9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements., Conclusions: This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.

Background: Federal Law requires approval from an Institutional Review Board prior to conducting human subjects research to ensure ethical distribution of benefits and harms. Notwithstanding this role and almost no prescriptive requirements about design or operation, there is little systematic research describing the key attributes of IRBs, as reported by IRB personnel themselves. Methods: Here, 55 IRB directors completed a survey of 77 questions. The goals of the study were to establish what a typical US IRB "looks like," determine whether IRB characteristics can be summarized by a smaller number of overarching components, determine the best predictors of IRB speed and efficiency, and determine whether IRBs differ by high-level qualitative characteristics such as institution type. The above was explored and tested using the general linear model and principal components analysis, and for the former, dependent variables of interest were, a) the time necessary for an IRB to approve a study, and b) efficiency of the review process for full board and expedited reviews. IVs of interest included multiple IRB characteristics. Results: 1) IRB characteristics can be summarized by four key components; 2) IRB speed and efficiency are most strongly determined by tendency to receive biomedical submissions, especially drug-related; and 3) IRBs do vary by institution type on some key variables. Conclusion: These results are the first step toward establishing national norms and building a working model of US IRBs to which other IRBs can compare themselves.

Part I provides the historiographical context and examines the causes which led to the creation of the first independent research ethics committee (REC) at Porton Down, Britain's biological and chemical warfare establishment, in operation since the First World War. The papers in part I and part II argue that the introduction of RECs in the UK stemmed from concerns about legal liability and research ethics among scientists responsible for human experiments, and from the desire of the UK military medical establishment to create an external organisation which would function both as an ' internal space ' for ethical debate and as an ' external body ' to share moral and legal responsibility. The paper asks: What factors were responsible for causing military scientists and government officials to contemplate the introduction of formalised structures for ethical review within the UK military? It argues that Porton may have been exempt from public scrutiny, but it was not above the law of the land. By the mid-1960s evidence of serious ill effects among staff members and service personnel involved in tests could no longer be ignored. Whereas the security of the British realm had previously trumped almost any other argument in contentious debates about chemical warfare, the role of medical ethics suddenly moved to the forefront of Porton's deliberations, so much so that tests with incapacitants were temporarily suspended in 1965. It was this crisis, examined in detail in part II, which functioned as a catalyst for the creation of the Applied Biology Committee as the responsible body, and first point of call, for authorising human experiments at Porton Down., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

This commentary uses personal research ethics experience in South Africa to consider the position of Tsan who recommends a consortium to develop common metrics / performance indicators for determining quality of RECs / IRBs. Terms such as performance, quality and throughput need clarification in research metrics before effective metrics may be useful.

The process of creating a new Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committee (REC) presents many challenges; however, little has been published to describe this experience. Thus, many questions about creating a new IRB/REC and the challenges they face remain. The establishment of a new federal-wide single IRB provided a rare opportunity to describe these experience and outcomes. A census of the activity and outcomes of this new board is reported for its first 3 years of operation: The convened board approved 50 protocols, required an average of 93.24 days and 2.76 reviews for protocol approval, and issued an average of 31.82 stipulations per protocol. The census data helped to identify several issues that impacted the board's outcomes and it serves as a baseline for future comparisons. The overall dynamics, challenges, and outcomes of this new single IRB are discussed.

Background: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study., Methods: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA., Results: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries., Discussion: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies., Conclusion: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries.

Background/aims: Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance)., Methods: This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial-a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data., Results: A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change., Conclusion: Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

This article argues in general support of the sIRB rule, but also draws on recent empirical research to highlight several residual weaknesses in the US regulatory structure for research ethics review, and suggests ways in which these weaknesses might be addressed in future regulatory reforms to improve upon the sIRB rule.

Background: During the set-up phase of an international study of genetic influences on outcomes from sepsis, we aimed to characterise potential differences in ethics approval processes and outcomes in participating European countries., Methods: Between 2005 and 2007 of the FP6-funded international Genetics Of Sepsis and Septic Shock (GenOSept) project, we asked national coordinators to complete a structured survey of research ethic committee (REC) approval structures and processes in their countries, and linked these data to outcomes. Survey findings were reconfirmed or modified in 2017., Results: Eighteen countries participated in the study, recruiting 2257 patients from 160 ICUs. National practices differed widely in terms of composition of RECs, procedures and duration of the ethics approval process. Eight (44.4%) countries used a single centralised process for approval, seven (38.9%) required approval by an ethics committee in each participating hospital, and three (16.7%) required both. Outcomes of the application process differed widely between countries because of differences in national legislation, and differed within countries because of interpretation of the ethics of conducting research in patients lacking capacity. The RECs in four countries had no lay representation. The median time from submission to final decision was 1.5 (interquartile range 1-7) months; in nine (50%) approval was received within 1 month; six took over 6 months, and in one 24 months; had all countries been able to match the most efficient approvals processes, an additional 74 months of country or institution-level recruitment would have been available. In three countries, rejection of the application by some local RECs resulted in loss of centres; and one country rejected the application outright., Conclusions: The potential benefits of the single application portal offered by the European Clinical Trials Regulation will not be realised without harmonisation of research ethics committee practices as well as national legislation.

Implementing the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) new single institutional review board (IRB) policy has caused a paradigm shift in IRB review across the country. IRBs and human research protection programs are looking more closely at their processes for ceding review and developing procedures to handle local review when relying on a single IRB. This article describes an NIH-funded network that proactively instituted a central IRB (CIRB) in 2012, anticipating the NIH future mandate. Lessons learned are described. There was a steep learning curve for IRBs and participating sites. IRB submission workload burden shifted from study teams to the data coordinating center, which created new workflow challenges, especially preparing hundreds of consent documents centrally. Despite difficulties encountered with CIRB review, this network is now fully functioning under a CIRB model. Further review and experience are needed to determine whether this shift in IRB review has eliminated duplicative review or regulatory burden from study teams., (© 2019 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Third in a series of four articles addressing ethical approaches and issues in undertaking clinical research with children and young people., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

It is often unclear to the clinical investigator whether observational studies should be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC), mostly because, in general, no active or additional interventions are performed. Moreover, obtaining an informed consent under these circumstances may be challenging, either because these are very large epidemiological registries, or the subject may no longer be alive, is too ill to consent, or is impossible to contact after being discharged. Although observational studies do not involve interventions, they entail ethical concerns, including threats such as breaches in confidentiality and autonomy, and respect for basic rights of the research subjects according to the good clinical practices. In this context, in addition to their main function as evaluators from an ethical, methodological, and regulatory point of view, the RECs serve as mediators between the research subjects, looking after their basic rights, and the investigator or institution, safeguarding them from both legal and unethical perils that the investigation could engage, by ensuring that all procedures are performed following the international standards of care for research. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information on each type of study and its risks, along with actions to prevent such risks, and the function of RECs in each type of study., (Copyright: © 2019 Permanyer.)

Research ethics must include theoretical and practical dimensions. The first one is structured by regulations and policies, and the second dimension refers to how the committee interprets and applies those regulations and policies. This article analyses the operation of the committees at a practical level. Given that the evaluation and judgement of research protocols is a process that requires full awareness, its omission entails important implications for health research., (Copyright: © 2019 Permanyer.)

"Changing the conversation" around genomic research with U.S. tribal communities may lead to new pathways to address persistent health disparities. Restoring trustworthiness between researchers and communities entails a willingness to listen to Indigenous voices, being flexible, and refining existing policies and frameworks to adapt to communities' needs.

Participants of Pharma-sponsored research are exposed to risks, benefits, and uncertainties that do not occur in other forms of clinical studies. Ethics committees represent the subjects' first line of protection. This responsibility begins with the study review and ends after all study subjects finish the intervention. The objective of this paper is to review the most common controversial issues found in Pharma-sponsored studies. Potential solutions are proposed to prevent or resolve the polemical aspects. However, different challenges will be faced in the near future (e.g., when new therapies reach their late stage of development). All parties involved in research should work together to guarantee the protection of participants, the paramount principle on which clinical investigation is based. Pharma-sponsored research is a crucial driver to develop and implement innovative approaches to improve the informed consent process and the execution of the studies., (Copyright: © 2019 Permanyer.)

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities harbor understandable mistrust of research. Outside researchers have historically controlled processes, promulgating conclusions and recommended policies with virtually no input from the communities studied. Reservation-based communities can apply sovereignty rights conferred by the federal government to change this research trajectory. Many tribes now require review and approval before allowing research activities to occur, in part through the development of regulatory codes and oversight measures. Tribal oversight ensures that research is directed toward questions of importance to the community and that results are returned in ways that optimize problem solving. Unfortunately, tribal governance protections do not always extend to AI/ANs residing in urban environments. Although they represent the majority of AI/ANs, urban Indians face an ongoing struggle for visibility and access to health care. It is against this backdrop that urban Indians suffer disproportionate health problems. Improved efforts to ensure responsible research with urban Indian populations requires attention to community engagement, research oversight, and capacity building. We consider strategies to offset these limitations and develop a foundation for responsible research with urban Indians.

The recent Ebola and Zika virus epidemics in some parts of Africa and Asia have showcased the porosity in disaster preparedness and response, not only in the affected countries, but on a global scale. For the Ebola epidemic, scientifically robust research was started late during the course of the epidemic, with waste of resources and lost research opportunities. Research Ethics Committees have a significant role to play with regards to epidemic response for the future. This paper presents key challenges and opportunities for ethics review during emergencies, specifically for low and middle income countries. There is no better moment to test the efficacy and safety of drugs or vaccines for infected, or at risk populations than during the disaster itself. The main mantras that form the back bone of research ethics review (Helsinki Declaration, the CIOMS International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, WHO and the ICH guidelines for Good Clinical Practice) are increasingly showing their limitations. Most protocols are generally from developed countries where the funding originates. Not only is the direct transposition to Low and Middle Income Country (LMIC) settings inappropriate on its own, also, using such guidelines in times of public health disasters might be time consuming, and might also lead to wastage of research opportunities, especially when sociocultural peculiarities, and anthropological research arms are completely excluded or avoided within the care and research packages. Governments should include RECs as key members during the elaboration, and daily functioning of their national public emergency response packages. Developing simple research ethics review guidelines, involvement of health care staff in ethics training, community mobilization, and incorporation of anthropological research during the medical response, research and communication phases, are imperatives in epidemic response., Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or 'preapproval', access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients' best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee (CompAC). Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice., Competing Interests: Competing interests: Janssen Pharmaceuticals provided administrative costs. First author and NYU-affiliated authors are not paid. Some CompAC members take payment, others do not., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2018. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

A key aim of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to generate data that are important to patients by deliberately and extensively involving them in all aspects of research, from design to dissemination. However, certain elements of PCOR raise challenging and potentially novel ethical and regulatory issues for institutional review boards and oversight bodies. These challenges stem primarily from the engagement of patients in roles other than research subject, such as advisors, study personnel, and co-investigators, which gives rise to questions about appropriate levels of protection, training, and education, as well as identifying and managing conflicts of interest. This article presents and discusses recommendations from a Delphi expert panel that was convened to address these and other PCOR-related oversight challenges.

This article analyzes how a formal text (the Ethics Review Form) available at National Health Service Research Ethics Committees (NHSRECs) in the United Kingdom was used in meetings. Derived from the work of Dorothy Smith on incorporating texts into institutional ethnography (IE), it proposes the concept of "text work" as a way into understanding more about decision-making in ethics review and describes the extent to which this formal text shaped and influenced review work. The research study used observations of committee meetings, field-notes and interviews to produce an ethnographic mapping of Research Ethics Committees' (RECs) work. This article draws on one aspect of the research which was the process of isolating a particular, ubiquitous text and analyzing how it worked and was worked on in the meetings. The analysis contributes to contemporary discussion offering an alternative to ongoing debates about idealized ways of conducting ethics review. Finally, some tentative suggestions are made about improving training, based on and starting from the work which reviewers undertake.