Cargando…
Improving the process of research ethics review
BACKGROUND: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standard...
Autores principales: | , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7 |
_version_ | 1783298683015528448 |
---|---|
author | Page, Stacey A. Nyeboer, Jeffrey |
author_facet | Page, Stacey A. Nyeboer, Jeffrey |
author_sort | Page, Stacey A. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met. MAIN BODY: Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities. CONCLUSION: Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5803582 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-58035822018-02-15 Improving the process of research ethics review Page, Stacey A. Nyeboer, Jeffrey Res Integr Peer Rev Commentary BACKGROUND: Research Ethics Boards, or Institutional Review Boards, protect the safety and welfare of human research participants. These bodies are responsible for providing an independent evaluation of proposed research studies, ultimately ensuring that the research does not proceed unless standards and regulations are met. MAIN BODY: Concurrent with the growing volume of human participant research, the workload and responsibilities of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) have continued to increase. Dissatisfaction with the review process, particularly the time interval from submission to decision, is common within the research community, but there has been little systematic effort to examine REB processes that may contribute to inefficiencies. We offer a model illustrating REB workflow, stakeholders, and accountabilities. CONCLUSION: Better understanding of the components of the research ethics review will allow performance targets to be set, problems identified, and solutions developed, ultimately improving the process. BioMed Central 2017-08-18 /pmc/articles/PMC5803582/ /pubmed/29451537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Page, Stacey A. Nyeboer, Jeffrey Improving the process of research ethics review |
title | Improving the process of research ethics review |
title_full | Improving the process of research ethics review |
title_fullStr | Improving the process of research ethics review |
title_full_unstemmed | Improving the process of research ethics review |
title_short | Improving the process of research ethics review |
title_sort | improving the process of research ethics review |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5803582/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29451537 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT pagestaceya improvingtheprocessofresearchethicsreview AT nyeboerjeffrey improvingtheprocessofresearchethicsreview |