Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated, Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board Members

A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated, Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board Members In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review board (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include “at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas” and “at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution.” Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members on IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participate. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members’ experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Accountability in Research Taylor & Francis

A Qualitative Study of Non-Affiliated, Non-Scientist Institutional Review Board Members

Accountability in Research , Volume 13 (2): 21 – Jul 1, 2006
22 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/taylor-francis/a-qualitative-study-of-non-affiliated-non-scientist-institutional-Y0eMFpKmXa

References (21)

Publisher
Taylor & Francis
Copyright
Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN
1545-5815
eISSN
0898-9621
DOI
10.1080/08989620600654027
pmid
16827216
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

In addition to outlining criteria for the approval of human subjects research, federal regulations provide guidance regarding local institutional review board (IRB) membership. IRBs are mandated to include “at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas” and “at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution.” Often a single individual serves both of these roles simultaneously. Although there have been calls for increased representation of lay community members on IRBs, little is known regarding their experiences or their perceptions of human subject protections and the IRB process. Using an ethnographic interview approach, this study seeks to gain a perspective from non-affiliated, non-scientist (NA/NS) IRB members about the process in which they participate. Findings suggest a need for clarification regarding whom NA/NS IRB members represent. They also suggest that NA/NS IRB members’ experiences could be improved by an increased show of respect from the IRB chair, other members, and staff; efforts to make participation more convenient for these volunteer members; and training tailored specifically to NA/NS members. Further research on this important and understudied topic is needed to determine best practice and policy recommendations.

Journal

Accountability in ResearchTaylor & Francis

Published: Jul 1, 2006

Keywords: human subjects protection; Institutional Review Boards; IRB membership/composition; non-scientist IRB members; non-affiliated IRB members; community IRB members

There are no references for this article.