Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
S. Sengupta, B. Lo (2003)
The Roles and Experiences of Nonaffiliated and Non‐scientist Members of Institutional Review BoardsAcademic Medicine, 78
E. Anderson (2006)
A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated, Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board MembersAccountability in Research, 13
L. Cox, J. Rouff, K. Svendsen, Madelyne Markowitz, D. Abrams (1998)
Community Advisory Boards:Their Role in AIDS Clinical TrialsHealth & Social Work, 23
Sarah Dyer (2004)
Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees.Health & place, 10 4
J. Porter (1986)
What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members?IRB, 8 3
S. Morin, A. Maiorana, Kimberly Koester, N. Sheon, A.T. Richards (2003)
Community Consultation in HIV Prevention Research: A Study of Community Advisory Boards at 6 Research SitesJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 33
A. Strauss, J. Corbin (1993)
Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques.Contemporary Sociology, 21
C. Lidz, L. Simon, A. Seligowski, Suzanne Myers, W. Gardner, P. Candilis, R. Arnold, P. Appelbaum (2012)
The Participation of Community Members on Medical Institutional Review BoardsJournal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7
J. Porter (1987)
How unaffiliated/nonscientist members of institutional review boards see their roles.IRB, 9 6
S. Solomon (2016)
Too Many Rationales, Not Enough Reason: A Call to Examine the Goals of Including Lay Members on Institutional Review BoardsAccountability in Research, 23
Governments, funders, and institutional policies increasingly encourage and even mandate the involvement of nonscientists in the ethical review of research, most famously in institutional review boards (IRBs), but also on community advisory boards (CABs) and other committees that contribute to research governance. In spite of these requirements, few have examined how different factors such as recruitment strategies, training, and different qualifications shape the contributions of nonscientists to the research enterprise. This pilot study begins to fill in this lacuna by interviewing nonscientist members of IRBs and community members of CABs. Results suggest patterned differences in demographics, recruitment strategies, training, and perceived qualifications between community members on these two types of boards with potential implications for how we perceive the scope of contributions that nonscientists can provide to the ethical review of research and the strategic ways these contributions can be elicited.
Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics – SAGE
Published: Feb 1, 2018
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.