Search

Importance: With the increase in trials assessing comparative effectiveness of approved products and alternative care strategies, guidance is needed to ensure ethical oversight is fit for purpose for the risks, burdens, and constraints on choice this research presents., Observations: US regulations governing human research emerged in response to horrific research abuses, reinforcing the view that research holds greater risks, uncertainties, and potential for abuse than clinical care, and thus protections and oversight are required for research, but not for care. The research oversight system established by these regulations has been effective, with most clinical research reviewed in advance for possible risk and burdens and for threats to autonomy and justice. For clinical research, however, it has become too much of a one-size-fits-all mechanism. As more comparative effectiveness and other research on widely used clinical interventions are conducted, research oversight should be fit for purpose for these kinds of trials, with the degree of oversight based on 2 morally relevant features of a trial. The first of these features is the degree to which risks and burdens increase or change when research is integrated into clinical care compared with what patient-participants would have experienced in care absent the research. The second is whether the activity restricts meaningful patient decision-making about care in morally important ways: (1) does the research restrict a choice or decision that patients ordinarily are or should be involved in and (2) does research participation remove from patients the ability to make a decision that may be meaningful to them, one based, at least in part, on their values, priorities, logistical or practical considerations, and the like? Whether clinical trials add risk or burden to what patients would otherwise have experienced, and whether studies restrict meaningful decisions patients would or should have had the opportunity to make, should help to determine whether clinical studies are designated as greater than vs minimal risk. Further, it is recommended that investigators and oversight bodies consider streamlined consent procedures for research presenting minimal additional risk or burden and that does not constrain meaningful patient decisions, rather than assuming that waiving all consent requirements is the only alternative., Conclusions and Relevance: Ethical oversight of clinical research must be fit for purpose-with greater oversight for studies with greater risks, uncertainties, and impacts on meaningful patient decisions-and more streamlined oversight for other types of research.

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 article describes the development of an institutional quality improvement review board (QIRB) as an effective and efficient method for reviewing and overseeing institutional quality improvement (QI) initiatives. QI projects involve the systematic collection and analysis of data and the implementation of interventions designed to improve the quality of clinical care and/or educational programs for a distinct population in a specific setting. QI projects are fundamentally distinct from human subjects research (HuSR); however, the differences between them are subtle and highly nuanced. Determining whether a project meets the definition of QI or qualifies as HuSR, thus requiring institutional review board (IRB) review, can be confusing and frustrating. Nevertheless, this distinction is highly consequential due to the heavy regulatory requirements involved in HuSR and IRB oversight. Making the correct determination of a project's regulatory status is essential before the project begins. Project leaders may not realize that their work meets the definition of HuSR and, therefore, might conduct the project without appropriate IRB review. Therefore, best practices dictate that project leaders should not decide which type of institutional review is appropriate for their projects. In addition, when QI project teams attempt to disseminate the results of their work, documentation of formal review and approval is generally required by peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations. However, institutional review mechanisms are rarely available. Projects that do not meet the definition of HuSR fall outside the purview of IRBs and most institutions do not have an alternative review body. This creates frustration for both project leaders and IRB administrators. Apart from IRB review, a separate process for reviewing QI projects offers several benefits. These include (1) relieving the burden on busy IRB staff; (2) promoting scholarly activity; (3) protecting the institution, project leaders, and participants from HuSR conducted outside of appropriate IRB review; and (4) promoting rigorous QI methods., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is an increase in human subject research in developing countries and conducting them in an ethical manner depends on the research ethics oversight in these countries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operational, financial, and educational characteristics of research ethics committees (RECs) at institutions in Vietnam and Laos., Methods: A validated self-assessment tool designed to assess nine major characteristics of RECs was translated into Vietnamese and Laotian. The translated surveys were delivered to and completed by representatives from RECs at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. The surveys were collected, translated back into English, and scored. The data was analyzed to identify potential areas of strength and areas for improvement., Results: The mean survey score for the 19 RECs surveyed was 165.3 out of a maximum of 200 points with a standard deviation of 22.9. Committees scored the highest in the review of specific protocol items (95.6%), submission arrangements and materials (89.5%), and the policies referring to review procedures (85.6%) domains. RECs scored the lowest in the resources domain (65.5%), with only 26.3% of committees having an annual budget. Nearly all RECs have standard operating procedures (94.7%) and policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (89.5%). Most committees use prior ethics training as a criterion to select REC chairs (78.9%) and members (73.7%), with the majority of committees requiring a training course in ethics (76.5%). 68.4% of committees have continuing education in ethics for members and only 42.1% of committees have a budget for member training., Conclusion: This study demonstrated that RECs in Vietnam and Laos have strong foundational review processes for research protocols. Important areas of improvement include improved institutional oversight, financial and administrative resources, and the continued ethics education for current committee members., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2024 Sattah et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Educators are challenged to find better ways to prepare doctoral nursing students to conduct scholarly work involving human subjects., Purpose: To better understand doctoral nursing students' attitudes toward programmatic scholarly work and Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) education and submission processes., Methods: Recent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Philosophy of Nursing (PhD) graduates were recruited using convenience sampling techniques to participate in this cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-methods pilot study. Data were collected using two researcher-developed instruments., Discussion: Nineteen doctoral nursing students participated in this study. Students most often used a quantitative approach with health care providers to complete their scholarly work requirements. Both PhD and DNP participants were overall satisfied with the IRB/QIC content in the curricula and the submission process. Four themes were identified: (a) Efficiency, (b) Collaboration, (c) Faculty Mentorship, and (d) Areas for Improvement., Conclusion: Findings from this pilot study may be used to enhance IRB/QIC processes through revision of administrative processes and student education., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is increasingly common in routine clinical practice. As tools to quantify symptoms and health status, PROMs play an important role in focusing health care on outcomes that matter to patients. The uses of PROM data are myriad, ranging from clinical care to survey-based research and quality improvement. Discerning the boundaries between these use cases can be challenging for institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we provide a framework for classifying the three primary PROM use cases (clinical care, human subjects research, and quality improvement) and discuss the level of IRB oversight (if any) necessary for each. One of the most important considerations for IRB staff is whether PROMs are being used primarily for clinical care and thus do not constitute human subjects research. We discuss characteristics of PROMs implemented primarily for clinical care, focusing on: data platform; survey location; questionnaire length; patient interface; and clinician interface. We also discuss IRB oversight of projects involving the secondary use of PROM data that were collected during the course of clinical care, which span human subjects research and quality improvement. This framework provides practical guidance for IRB staff as well as clinicians who use PROMs as communication aids in routine clinical practice., (© 2024 The Authors. Ethics & Human Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Hastings Center.)

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.

As the world grapples with the constant threat of new pathogens, the role of government oversight in research and response efforts has become a topic of considerable debate in the academic community. In the recently released "SOP [standard operating procedure] for Nipah virus research in Kerala for studies involving human participants / human samples" by the Government of Kerala, the SOP, apart from administrative permission, requires the proposal to be cleared by the Institutional Research Committee at a Government Medical College, and the inclusion of an investigator from a government institution [1]. In these challenging times, it is crucial to weigh the pros and cons of stringent administrative controls to ensure an effective and ethical approach to tackling emerging infectious diseases.

Bodies of deceased persons and human remains and their specimens (i.e., organs, bones, tissues, or biological samples) are essential in forensic research but ad hoc worldwide-recognized ethical standards for their use are still lacking. Such standards are needed both to avoid possible unethical practices and to sustain research in the forensic field. Pending consensus within the forensic science community regarding this topic, with this article we aim to stimulate a debate as to the applicability and usefulness of the Declaration of Helsinki in the field of forensic research involving human cadavers and remains. Considering the fundamental differences compared to clinical research involving human beings and the different moral obligations involved, we focus on the risks, burdens, and benefits of research, ethics committee approval, and informed consent requirements. The Declaration of Helsinki framework allows forensic researchers to focus on substantial ethical principles promoting the consistency, integrity, and quality of research. Consensus regarding ethical standards and the adoption of national and supranational laws that clearly regulate the use of human cadavers and remains, including those from autopsies, continues to be of primary importance for the forensic science community., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

With the rapid spread of SARS-CoV2 has come a rapid proliferation of clinical research studies, resulting in considerable strain on research ethics committees (RECS), which need to review study proposals. RECs are pressured to move through the review process quickly so that studies can get underway to address the pandemic. These committees are also asked to increase efficiency without relaxing the standards for ethical review. RECs are accustomed to external pressure for approval from investigators; however, in the Covid-19 era, this pressure is coming from not only the sponsors and investigators but also many other stakeholders, including world leaders, the community, the media, and professional organizations. Drawing on the authors' experiences on a central REC reviewing complex multicenter Covid-19 studies, this commentary describes challenges that are inherent to Covid-19 research studies, such as the difficulty of obtaining informed consent from patients ill with the highly infectious virus. The commentary recommends several steps that RECs can take to ensure ethical review of research studies during the Covid-19 pandemic and future infectious disease outbreaks., (© 2021 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

There are many differences between Asian regions in terms of the regulatory requirements and operational procedures in conducting international academic clinical trials for the approval of new drugs. The National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan has launched an international investigator-initiated registration-directed trial (IIRDT) in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, aiming at obtaining pharmaceutical approval in participating regions. Differences in regulatory and operational procedures were identified while coordinating the trial. In Japan, regulatory authority reviews should be performed after approval by institutional review boards for IIRDT, whereas in other regions these can be done in parallel. There were disparities in Good Manufacturing Practice-related documents between regions. Several differences were found regarding investigational product (IP) management, specifically concerning labeling, import/export procedures, and customs clearance costs. On the other hand, safety reporting procedures were relatively well-harmonized in accordance with International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use, Clinical Safety Data Management: Definitions and Standards for Expedited Reporting (ICH-E2A). Regions also differed in per-patient costs, due to varying regulations for academic registration-directed trials. In conclusion, the observed differences among Asian regions should be harmonized to facilitate international academic trials in Asia and thus resolve unmet patient needs worldwide. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? International clinical trials have become common because they make it possible to accrue patients faster and obtain new drug approval in wider areas. However, pharmaceutical regulatory differences hinder the efficient conduct of international clinical trials, especially in academia. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? We conducted an academic international clinical trial on new drug applications in four Asian countries and clarified pharmaceutical regulatory differences and operational difficulties. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? The study identified differences between countries in terms of regulatory affairs, institutional review board (IRB) review processes, investigational new drug (IND) dossiers, investigational product (IP) management procedures, and clinical trial costs, while safety reporting procedures were relatively harmonized. Japan utilizes investigator-initiated registration-directed trials, an advanced regulatory system for new drug application by academia, but the other countries do not. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? Harmonization of pharmaceutical regulations and trial initiation procedures, and regulatory reform of clinical trial costs are important to accelerate academic international clinical trials for new drug applications., (© 2020 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Many are calling for concrete mechanisms of oversight for health research involving artificial intelligence (AI). In response, institutional review boards (IRBs) are being turned to as a familiar model of governance. Here, we examine the IRB model as a form of ethics oversight for health research that uses AI. We consider the model's origins, analyze the challenges IRBs are facing in the contexts of both industry and academia, and offer concrete recommendations for how these committees might be adapted in order to provide an effective mechanism of oversight for health-related AI research., (© 2021 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Background: New considerations during the ethical review processes may emerge from innovative, yet unfamiliar operational methods enabled in pragmatic randomized controlled trials (RCT), potentially making institutional review board (IRB) evaluation more complex. In this manuscript, key components of the pragmatic "Aspirin Dosing: A Patient-Centric Trial Assessing Benefits and Long-term Effectiveness (ADAPTABLE)" randomized trial that required a reappraisal of the IRB submission, review, and approval processes are discussed., Main Text: ADAPTABLE is a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label RCT evaluating the comparative effectiveness of two doses of aspirin widely used for secondary prevention (81 mg and 325 mg) in 15,000 patients with an established history of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. The electronic informed consent form is completed online by the participants at the time of enrollment, and endpoint ascertainment is conducted through queries of electronic health records. IRB challenges encountered regarding centralized IRB evaluation, electronic informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination in ADAPTABLE are described in this manuscript. The experience of ADAPTABLE encapsulates how pragmatic protocol components intended to facilitate the study conduct have been tempered by unexpected, yet justified concerns raised by local IRBs. How the lessons learned can be applied to future similar pragmatic trials is delineated., Conclusion: Development of engaging communication channels between IRB and study personnel in pragmatic randomized trials as early as at the time of protocol design allows to reduce issues with IRB approval. Integrations of the lessons learned in ADAPTABLE regarding the IRB process for centralized IRBs, informed consent, patient engagement, and risk determination can be emulated and will be instrumental in future pragmatic studies.

The world currently faces an unprecedented pandemic outbreak of coronavirus disease (Covid-19). The novel nature of the virus and very high infection rates have not only increased the urgency to find a vaccine or cure but have also led to drastic changes in the mode of conduct of research. Thus, the Indian Council of Medical Research has developed the "National Guidelines for Ethics Committees Reviewing Biomedical & Health Research during Covid-19 Pandemic" for guidance during the review of research. Here, we attempt to analyse the strengths and limitations of these guidelines to assess if the unique ethical challenges faced during research in the current situation are adequately identified and addressed and if foundational values and principles of research ethics have been taken into account in these guidelines.

In response to researcher noncompliance with ethical and regulatory provisions governing research with humans, protocol deviations, and unanticipated problems with research, institutional review boards (IRBs) or institutions sometimes impose restrictions on the use of research data, although specific cases in which this happens are unlikely to be known publicly. We review IRB policies at top research institutions in the United States about restrictions on the use of research data and describe potential reasons for restricting the use of such data in the context of ensuring compliance with human subjects research standards. We also discuss ethical considerations related to restricting the use of research data and argue that IRBs have limited regulatory authority to take such actions. Finally, we offer recommendations regarding decision-making about restricting the use of research data and call for additional guidance in this area., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Individual-cluster trials randomize groups of individuals but deliver study interventions directly to individual participants. We examine three arguments that might justify the perception that the bar for a waiver of consent should be lower in such trials than for individually randomized trials. We contend that if these arguments are treated as sufficient to grant a waiver of consent, then a loophole emerges in research oversight. Such loopholes are morally hazardous for study participants, the integrity of science, and public trust in the research enterprise. We conclude by articulating the standards that research ethics committees should use to evaluate requests for waivers of consent in individual-cluster trials., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

This article describes the process of designing, approving, and conducting an investigator-initiated protocol to use an eye-tracking device in a health care setting. Participants wore the device, which resembles eyeglasses, in a front-facing manner in an intensive care unit for the study of personnel gaze patterns, producing a visual record of workflow. While the data of interest for our study was not specifically the health information protected by the privacy rule of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a wide variety of such data was captured by the eye-tracking device, and the prospective consent of all people who might have been incidentally videotaped was not feasible. The protocol therefore required attention to unique ethical considerations-including consent, privacy and confidentiality, HIPAA compliance, institutional liability, and the use of secondary data. The richness of eye-tracker data suggests various beneficial applications in health care occupational research and quality improvement. Therefore, sharing our study's successful design and execution, including proactive researcher-institutional review board communication, can inform and encourage similarly valuable, ethical, and innovative audiovisual research techniques., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Evaluating the quality and effectiveness of the institutional review boards (IRBs) responsible for overseeing research involving human participants is critically important but perpetually challenging. Seemingly common-sense measures, such as the number of proposals approved with and without major modifications and the number of unexpected adverse events occurring in approved protocols, can be misleading indicators of participant protection, and regulatory compliance may not correspond to achieving ethical goals. These measurement challenges make it difficult to assess the validity of concerns about different IRB models. A group of U.S. senators recently raised questions about the increasing use of for-profit IRBs to review research proposals (as opposed to boards typically housed at academic medical centers and health care institutions) and, more specifically, about the growing trend of private equity ownership and consolidation of for-profit IRBs. Although all IRBs face pressure to speed reviews and none are entirely free of conflicts of interest, the private equity model is particularly susceptible to approaches that could undercut the ethical mission of IRBs to protect and promote the rights and welfare of research participants. Ideally, the quality of board oversight could be measured directly, rather than relying on the heuristic of board type; this article describes several current efforts toward this goal. In the meantime, one improvement may be to pursue a new model of IRB oversight: independent nonprofit boards that stand apart from research institutions, take advantage of business approaches to research review, and minimize conflicts of interest.

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 near-routine exclusion of pregnant women from clinical research has resulted in evidence gaps that endanger the health of pregnant women and their future offspring. Although existing literature documents numerous obstacles along the clinical trial pathway that can stymie research involving pregnant women, there is little guidance on how to facilitate such research. This qualitative study aims to fill that void by examining the experiences of individuals involved in conducting, approving, or overseeing research involving pregnant women at one academic institution. The study identifies factors throughout the clinical pathway-from protocol development, to IRB review, and ultimately trial execution-that likely contribute to the successful conduct of research with pregnant women. Attention to those factors, coupled with agreement among stakeholders that research with pregnant women should and can be done ethically and legally, is critical to shifting the narrative from "why we cannot" do such research to "how we can.", (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

Clinical research remains at the forefront of academic practice and evidence-based medicine. Unfortunately, history has shown that human subjects are vulnerable to experimentation without regard for their own dignity and informed decision-making. Subsequently, it is vital for research institutes to uphold safeguards and ethical conscientiousness toward human subjects. The establishment of federal regulations and the development of institutional review boards have set guidance on these processes. On January 21, 2019, final revisions to the Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects (the "Common Rule") went into effect. The purpose of this article is to review changes to the Common Rule and discuss their impact on plastic surgery research.

The Risk Assessment Program (RAP) at Fox Chase Cancer Center (Philadelphia, PA) is a multi-generational prospective cohort, enhanced for personal and family history of cancer, consisting of over 10,000 individuals for whom data on personal and family history of cancer, risk factors, genetic and genomic data, health behaviors, and biospecimens are available. The RAP has a broad research agenda including the characterization of genes with known or potential relevance to cancer, gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, and their contribution to clinically useful risk assessment and risk reduction strategies. Increasingly, this body of research is identifying genetic changes which may have clinical significance for RAP research participants, leading us to confront the issue of whether to return genetic results emerging from research laboratories. This review will describe some of the important fundamental points that must be debated as we develop a paradigm for return of research results. The key issues to address as the scientific community moves toward adopting a policy of return of research results include the best criteria for determining which results to offer, the consent document components necessary to ensure that the participant makes a truly informed decision about receiving their results, and associated logistical and cost challenges. See all articles in this Special Collection Honoring Paul F. Engstrom, MD, Champion of Cancer Prevention ., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

The aim of this research was to gain insight into the experiences and perspectives of individual members of a Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) regarding their individual roles and possible tensions within and between these roles. We conducted a qualitative interview study among members of a large MREC, supplemented by a focus group meeting. Respondents distinguish five roles: protector, facilitator, educator, advisor and assessor. Central to the role of protector is securing valid informed consent and a proper risk-benefit analysis. The role of facilitator implies that respondents want to think along with and assist researchers in order to help medical science progress. As educators, the respondents want to raise ethical and methodological awareness of researchers. The role of advisor implies that respondents bring in their own expertise. The role of assessor points to contributing to the overall evaluation of the research proposal. Various tensions were identified within and between roles. Within the role of protector, a tension is experienced between paternalism and autonomy. Between the role of protector and facilitator tensions occur when the value of a study is questioned while risks and burdens for the subjects are negligible. Within the role of assessor, a tension is felt between the implicit nature of judgments and the need for more explicit formulations. Awareness of various roles and responsibilities may prevent one-sided views on MREC work, not only by members themselves, but also by researchers. Tensions within and between the roles require reflection by MREC members.

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.

A central pillar of the Belmont Report is that a bright line must be drawn between medical practice and biomedical research. That line may have been brighter 50 years ago. Today, the typical physician is likely to work for a corporation or health system that styles itself as a learning health system. Such systems increasingly emphasize the (research-like) use of data to measure quality, encourage efficiency, ensure safety, and guide a standardized approach to clinical care. While these activities are not considered research, they pose many of the same risks or conflicts of loyalty. In research, the doctor's fiduciary loyalty to the patient is compromised by a loyalty to the scientific process. In learning health systems, the doctor's loyalty is compromised by loyalty to the system and its metrics. In this world, it is not clear that research-as conceptualized by the Belmont Report, codified in the Common Rule, and overseen by IRBs-is a uniquely risky activity deserving of such uniquely strict oversight. Perhaps, instead, the divided loyalties and conflicts of interest faced by everyday clinicians working in learning health systems demand a protective framework similar to the one that we now have for the activities that we designate as "research." This article compares the risks of the various activities that might be called "research" and suggests a unified system of oversight for all of them.

This paper traces the reception of the Belmont Report in Europe and its influence on the development of European research ethics thinking and European research ethics systems. It is very difficult to trace a clear, linear reception history because it is difficult to disentangle the influence of the Report from the influence of concurrent developments, such as the 1975 revision of the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki and the requirement for research ethics review in the Vancouver Group's 1978 "Uniform Requirements for Manuscript Submission." The Report's insistence that the focus of research ethics should be the rights and interests of the individual research subject, and the use of an ethical framework and not ethical theory as the basis of analysis and justification of recommendations, were nevertheless very important for the development of research ethics. The divergence between Europe and the US in the governance of non-biomedical research can at least partly be explained by the absence of strong drivers for the introduction of research ethics committees outside of biomedicine in Europe, and by the ability of non-biomedical researchers to mobilize effectively against the introduction of such committees.

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.

The Society for Adolescent Health and Medicine emphasizes the need for research to focus on the health outcomes of sexual minority youth (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer). However, sexual minority youth (SMY) are often less willing to participate in research studies where parental consent is required due to potential victimization and discrimination. This is a major concern given that more research is needed to understand the health needs of this population, especially in terms of suicide, substance use, and HIV prevention. The National Suicide Prevention Strategy classifies SMY as a high-risk group, emphasizing the need to explore suicide risks (along with other health outcomes) among this group. However, this high-risk classification also increases the safeguards necessary to conduct research with this population. Many researchers have argued for waivers of parental consent, but such waivers present with several ethical implications. This article discusses ethical principles, risks, benefits, safeguards, and potential alternative approaches to waivers of parental consent for SMY. We conclude by emphasizing the need for policy changes to allow parental consent waivers for research targeting SMY.

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.

Measuring the quality and performance of IRBs requires clarity about what IRBs are supposed to do. Although many agree that IRBs are supposed to protect the rights and welfare of human subjects, exactly how review by an IRB contributes to protection is not always clear. Originally, ethics review was instituted as a way to check the interests, possible conflicts, and enthusiasm of investigators whose relationship to participants is different from physicians' relationship to patients. IRB performance might include evaluating how well IRBs do this.

In 2007, Taylor proposed to move beyond compliance to develop measures for assessing the ethical quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews. To date, no such tool has been developed. In 2018, Lynch et al. proposed to move beyond quality to advance effective research ethics oversight. Instead of providing a set of measures, they proposed to define and specify ways to measure the effectiveness of IRBs in protecting human subjects. They further claimed that any attempts to measure the quality and performance of IRBs without using such measures, to be developed by them in the unforeseeable future, were not helpful. The realities are that nearly 50 years after its establishment, there has been no systematic assessment of the quality and performance of IRBs, and that nearly two decades after the deaths of Jesse Gelsinger and Ellen Roche and the implementation of reform processes to improve our system of protecting human subjects, there is still plenty of room for improvement. The challenges today are for Taylor to come up with a tool to measure the ethical quality of IRB reviews, for Lynch et al. to develop measures for assessing the effectiveness of IRBs in protecting human subjects, and for the IRB community to decide whether to continue to wait for Taylor and Lynch et al. to develop their promised tools or to start taking advantage of performance measurements to improve the quality and performance of IRBs by using existing IRB performance metrics or to improve those existing performance metrics.

Despite the importance of institutional review boards (IRBs) in protecting human subjects participating in research and the well-known benefits of performance measurements, there has been no systematic assessment of the quality and performance of IRBs. The IRB community has frequently cited the lack of credible metrics for measuring human subject protections and the quality of IRB ethics reviews as reasons for not measuring the quality and performance of IRBs. However, the IRB, with its well-defined missions, functions, structure, and procedures, should be readily amendable to performance measurements. In this brief commentary, I analyzed potential barriers for measuring the quality of IRBs and proposed ways to overcome these barriers.

In response to increasing concerns regarding inconsistency in the decision-making of institutional review boards (IRBs), we introduce the decision-maker's dilemma, which arises when complex, normative decisions must be made regularly. Those faced with such decisions can either develop a process of algorithmic decision-making, in which consistency is ensured but many morally relevant factors are excluded from the process, or embrace discretionary decision-making, which makes space for morally relevant factors to shape decisions but leads to decisions that are inconsistent. Based on an exploration of similarities between systems of criminal sentencing and of research ethics review, we argue for a discretionary system of decision-making, even though it leads to more inconsistency than does an algorithmic system. We conclude with a discussion of some safeguards that could improve consistency while still making space for discretion to enter IRBs' decision-making processes., (© 2019 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

There are several reasons to believe that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) contribute to ethical research and the protection of research participants, but there are also important reasons to interrogate this belief. Determining whether IRBs and HRPPs "work" requires empirical evaluation of whether and how well they actually achieve what they were designed to do. In other words, it is critical to examine their outcomes and not only their procedures and structures. In this response to Tsan, we argue that the concept of IRB and HRPP quality entails three dimensions: (1) effectiveness, (2) procedures and structures likely to promote effectiveness, and (3) features unrelated to effectiveness but nonetheless essential, such as efficiency, fairness, and proportionality. Because not all types of quality necessarily guarantee or entail effectiveness, we suggest that broad quality assessments, including such features as regulatory compliance and other procedural measures suggested by Tsan, are unhelpful as the first step in evaluating IRBs and HRPPs. Instead, we must start with outcomes relevant to effectiveness. To do this, we launched the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (AEREO), with a mission to define and specify ways to measure relevant outcomes for research ethics oversight, empirically evaluate whether those outcomes are achieved, test new approaches to achieving them, and ultimately, develop and implement empirically-based policy and practice to advance IRB and HRPP effectiveness. We describe several anticipated AEREO projects and call for collaboration between various stakeholders to more meaningfully evaluate IRB and HRPPs.

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.

The increasing use of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings raises unique ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomised Trials is the first international ethical guidance document specific to cluster trials, but it is unknown if it adequately addresses issues in low-resource settings. In this paper, we seek to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement relevant to cluster trials conducted in low-resource settings. Our method is (1) to analyse a prototypical cluster trial conducted in a low-resource setting ( PURE Malawi trial ) with the Ottawa Statement ; (2) to identify ethical issues in the design or conduct of the trial not captured adequately and (3) to make recommendations for issues needing attention in forthcoming revisions to the Ottawa Statement Our analysis identified six ethical aspects of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings that require further guidance. The forthcoming revision of the Ottawa Statement should provide additional guidance on these issues: (1) streamlining research ethics committee review for collaborating investigators who are affiliated with other institutions; (2) the classification of lay health workers who deliver study interventions as health providers or research participants; (3) the dilemma experienced by investigators when national standards seem to prohibit waivers of consent; (4) the timing of gatekeeper engagement, particularly when researchers face funding constraints; (5) providing ancillary care in health services or implementation trials when a routine care control arm is known to fall below national standards and (6) defining vulnerable participants needing protection in low-resource settings., Competing Interests: Competing interests: CW receives consulting income from Eli Lilly and Company Canada., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Digital data generated in the course of clinical care are increasingly being leveraged for a wide range of secondary purposes. Researchers need to develop governance policies that can assure the public that their information is being used responsibly. Our aim was to develop a generalisable model for governance of research emanating from health data repositories that will invoke the trust of the patients and the healthcare professionals whose data are being accessed for health research. We developed our governance principles and processes through literature review and iterative consultation with key actors in the research network including: a data governance working group, the lead investigators and patient advisors. We then recruited persons to participate in the governing and advisory bodies. Our governance process is informed by eight principles: (1) transparency; (2) accountability; (3) follow rule of law; (4) integrity; (5) participation and inclusiveness; (6) impartiality and independence; (7) effectiveness, efficiency and responsiveness and (8) reflexivity and continuous quality improvement. We describe the rationale for these principles, as well as their connections to the subsequent policies and procedures we developed. We then describe the function of the Research Governing Committee, the majority of whom are either persons living with diabetes or physicians whose data are being used, and the patient and data provider advisory groups with whom they consult and communicate. In conclusion, we have developed a values-based information governance framework and process for Diabetes Action Canada that adds value over-and-above existing scientific and ethics review processes by adding a strong patient perspective and contextual integrity. This model is adaptable to other secure data repositories., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation received funds from Diabetes Action Canada SPOR Network towards a partial secondment of DJW time for the development of the governance process for the diabetes data repository. The Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, received funds from Diabetes Action Canada SPOR Network towards a partial secondment of MG time for the development of the Diabetes data repository. KK received personal fees from InfoClin during the conduct of the study towards designing the architecture of the Diabetes data repository. In addition, KK has a patent ‘Prediction of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 Using Biomarkers in Electronic Health Records and Differential Calculus’, pending., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)