Institutional Review Board Members Research Articles

Who to engage in HIV vaccine trial benefit-sharing negotiations? An empirical proposition of a framework

BackgroundA morally sound framework for benefit-sharing is crucial to minimize research exploitation for research conducted in developing countries. However, in practice, it remains uncertain which stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process regarding benefit-sharing and what the implications might be. Therefore the study aimed to empirically propose a framework for benefit-sharing negotiations in research by taking HIV vaccine trials as a case.MethodsThe study was conducted in Tanzania using a case study design and qualitative approaches. Data were collected using in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD). A total of 37 study participants were selected purposively comprising institutional review board (IRB) members, researchers, community advisory board (CAB) members, a policymaker, and HIV/AIDS advocates. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis approaches were deployed to analyze collected data with the aid of MAXQDA version 20.4.0 software.ResultsThe findings indicate a triangular relationship between the research community, researched community and intermediaries. However, the relationship ought to take into consideration the timing of negotiations, the level of understanding between parties and the phase of the clinical trial. The proposed framework operationalize partnership interactions in community-based participatory research.ConclusionIn the context of this study, the suggested framework incorporates the research community, the community being researched, and intermediary parties. The framework would guarantee well-informed and inclusive decision-making regarding benefit-sharing in HIV vaccine trials and other health-related research conducted in resource-limited settings.

The informed consent process: An evaluation of the challenges and adherence of Ghanaian researchers.

This study assessed challenges faced by researchers with the informed consent process (ICP). In-depth interviews were used to explore challenges encountered by Investigators, Research assistants, Institutional Review Board members and other stakeholders. An electronic questionnaire was also distributed, consisting of Likert-scale responses to questions on adherence to the ICP, which were derived from the Helsinki Declaration and an informed consent checklist of the US Department of Health and Human Research (HSS). Responses were weighted numerically and scores calculated for each participant. The median score of the level of adherence to the informed consent process was 93%. Most of the respondents (60%) cited the lack of time for the ICP to be a challenge, with 65% indicating a lengthy consent document to be the main challenge with the informed consent document. Challenges with language and communication were the dominant theme among informants. Despite the high adherence of Ghanaian researchers and research assistants to the ICP, challenges are still prevalent, requiring diligent and continuous efforts in research implementation.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders’ views on the eMERGE-IV study

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRS) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRS in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the NHGRI-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders’ views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care) as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Institutional Review Boards' Assessment of Local Context: A Mixed Methods Study.

The nature of the review of local context by institutional review boards (IRBs) is vague. Requirements for single IRB review of multicenter trials create a need to better understand interpretation and implementation of local-context review and how to best implement such reviews centrally. We sought a pragmatic understanding of IRB local-context review by exploring stakeholders' attitudes and perceptions. Semistructured interviews with 26 IRB members and staff members, institutional officials, and investigators were integrated with 80 surveys of similar stakeholders and analyzed with qualitative theme-based text analysis and descriptive statistical analysis. Stakeholders described what they considered to be local context, the value of local-context review, and key processes used to implement review of local context in general and for emergency research conducted with an exception from informed consent. Concerns and potential advantages of centralized review of local context were expressed. Variability in perspectives suggests that local-context review is not a discrete process, which presents opportunities for defining pathways for single IRB review.

Home nursing in clinical trials: Result from semi-structured qualitative interviews.

There is a need to transition from conventional (on-site) clinical trials (CTs) to trials conducted within the comfort of a patient's home or community (decentralized CT) through e-consent, remote data monitoring, and telemedicine consults. This shift in trial procedures will positively impact recruitment rates, compliance and participant retention, protocol deviations, and delays or missed visits. Home nursing in CTs (HNCTs) will be an important component of this decentralization effort. A few limitations may impact the implementation of HNCT in India. In this regard, the workstream conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with experts from diverse domains of CT conduct (researchers from academia and industry, clinicians, investigators, nursing staff, patient research advocates, institutional ethics committee, or institutional review board members, legal experts, and trial participants) to collect their understanding, perspectives, and the ground realities about HNCTs in India. The current review puts forth the key areas that would facilitate the establishment of HNCTs in India and provides recommendations for the same.

"Dogs on Call": A Community-Engaged Human Subjects Training with Hospital Based Therapy Dog Teams.

Problem: As community-engaged research (CER) methods evolve, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) must adapt policies to facilitate CER research. This paper describes a novel collaboration between hospital-based therapy dog volunteer teams (CERs), academic faculty, and an IRB. Subjects: CER volunteers delivered a canine-assisted intervention to hospitalized adults in a clinical trial. Methods: IRB members and faculty developed a human subjects protections training tailored to the volunteer handlers' role as study interventionists including an interactive video- and discussion-based training with a knowledge assessment. Findings: Fourteen volunteer handlers were trained. The expedited IRB review period was similar to national average rates (18 days.) Volunteer handlers have conducted 107 research visits with little patient attrition. Conclusion: Tailored human subjects trainings facilitate research with interventions delivered by people who are not typically involved in research. Bespoke CER human subjects training requires collaboration between researchers and IRBs and flexibility in IRB policy regarding CER.

Is There Such a Thing as Theological Medicine?

The idea that science must be understood in existential contradiction to religion and even theology is more of a conviction than a philosophical or experiential necessity. Indeed, we may now propose "Theological Medicine" as a new terminology for a perennial reality: that most physicians, health care providers, patients, and their caretakers experience the reality of illness within a theological framework, at least for those who have some degree of spiritual or religious belief. Developing a curriculum in Theological Medicine could develop a mechanism to offer appropriate training to healthcare providers. Such a course would have to be created and delivered by experienced physicians and nursing staff, spiritual advisors, clergy representatives such as pastors or priests from different churches or faith communities, bioethicists, psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists, patient support group members, members of institutional review boards, researchers, and even legal advisors, if available. Continuing professional education requirements also create an opportunity to introduce and evaluate competency in theological medicine, an emerging discipline that could add significant value to the lived experience of medical practice which remains based on the uniquely rich relationship between physician and patient.

Individualized interventions for rare genetic conditions and the research-treatment spectrum: Stakeholder perspectives

PurposeAdvances in the study of ultrarare genetic conditions are leading to the development of targeted interventions developed for single or very small numbers of patients. Owing to the experimental but also highly individualized nature of these interventions, they are difficult to classify cleanly as either research or clinical care. Our goal was to understand how parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists familiar with individualized genetic interventions conceptualize these activities and their implications for the relationship between research and clinical care. MethodsWe conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 28 parents, institutional review board members, and clinical geneticists and derived themes from those interviews through content analysis. ResultsIndividuals described individualized interventions as blurring the lines between research and clinical care and focused on hopes for therapeutic benefit and expectations for generalizability of knowledge and benefit to future patients. ConclusionIndividualized interventions aimed at one or few patients reveal the limitations of a binary framing of research and clinical care. As a hybrid set of activities, individualized interventions suggest the need for flexibility and new frameworks that acknowledge these activities across the spectrum of research and clinical care.

The ethics of “net-risk” pediatric research: views of institutional review board members and the US public

Background US regulations allow institutional review boards (IRBs) to approve “net-risk” pediatric research only when the risks are minimal or a minor increase over minimal. This study assessed whether IRB members agree with these risk limits and compared their views with those of US adults. Procedure An online survey was conducted for IRB members. The participants were randomized to one out of four studies, which pose increasing risks. They were asked to evaluate three versions of the assigned study that offer increasing potential social value. Results A total of 107 individuals met the inclusion criteria. Overall, 98% of the respondents indicated that net-risk pediatric research can be appropriate. Of the 77 respondents who passed the comprehension test, more than 90% indicated that a research blood draw can be appropriate. A majority endorsed a research bone marrow biopsy. Lastly, a majority supported somewhat greater risks when the study has high potential social value. The percentage of those who indicated that the specified research procedure was appropriate increased as the potential social value increased. Compared with US adults, the IRB members were more likely to think that net-risk pediatric research is appropriate when the risks are low but less likely when the risks are higher. Conclusions Most IRB members consider it appropriate to expose children to some research risks for the benefit of others. Moreover, a majority think that greater risks can be appropriate when the research has greater potential social value. These findings, together with similar findings from US adults, suggest that current regulations for pediatric research may be overly restrictive.

A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs

Background Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are federally mandated to include both nonscientific and unaffiliated representatives in their membership. Despite this, there is no guidance or policy on the selection of unaffiliated or non-scientist members and reports indicate a lack of clarity regarding members’ roles. In the present study we sought to explore processes of recruitment, training, and the perceived roles for unaffiliated and non-scientist members of IRBs. Methods We distributed a self-administered REDCap survey of members of the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs familiar with IRB member recruitment. The survey included closed and open-ended questions regarding: the operation of the HRPP/IRB(s), how unaffiliated and non-scientist members are recruited, whether they had faced challenges recruiting for these roles, and training and mentorship offered. The survey also collected information regarding the perceived value and roles of unaffiliated and non-scientist members. Results 76 responses were included in the analysis (38% completion rate). The most common approach for recruitment was referral from current IRB members, with almost half of respondents indicating challenges recruiting unaffiliated members. Over 75% indicated no additional training was provided to unaffiliated or non-scientist members compared to affiliated or scientist members. Most common supports provided were travel/parking expenses and honoraria. Commonly perceived roles were to provide an independent voice from the participant perspective, notably regarding consent processes and materials. Conclusions Respondents indicated challenges in defining unaffiliated and non-scientist members and limited practices toward recruitment and support. Future work should more closely examine the challenges in defining these roles and applying the definitions in practice, as well as strategies that may improve recruitment and retention of unaffiliated and non-scientist members.

Can HIV vaccines be shared fairly? Perspectives from Tanzania

BackgroundFor over 35 years, Africa has continued to host HIV vaccine trials geared towards overturning the HIV/AIDs pandemic in the continent. However, the methods of sharing the vaccines, when available remain less certain. Therefore, the study aims to explore stakeholders’ perspectives in the global South, in this case, Tanzania, on how HIV vaccines ought to be fairly shared.MethodsThe study deployed a qualitative case study design. Data were collected through in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with a total of 37 purposively selected participants. This included researchers, institutional review board members, a policymaker, HIV/AIDS advocates, and community advisory board members. The data obtained were inductively and deductively analyzed.ResultsFindings indicate that HIV vaccines can be shared fairly under the principles of distributive justice (contribution, need and equality). Thus, contribution-based sharing ought to be utilized upon the necessity to prioritize vaccine access or subsidized trial benefits to host communities. Need-based sharing ought to be considered for non-host communities that are at an increased risk of HIV infection. Lastly, equal-based sharing would be useful at later stages of vaccine distribution or when the aforementioned principles are deemed morally inappropriate. However, none of the benefit-sharing approaches is free of limitations and a counterbalancing sense of unfairness.ConclusionFair sharing of HIV vaccines, when available, ought to be informed by the contribution, need and equality principles of distributive justice. Countries in the global south including Tanzania are likely to be prioritized during the distribution of the HIV vaccines due to their participation in HIV vaccine trials and due to the disproportionate HIV burden evident in the region.

Diversity in IRB Membership: Views of IRB Chairpersons at U.S. Universities and Academic Medical Centers

Background Diversity in Institutional Review Board (IRB) membership is important for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons, including fairness, promoting trust, improving decision quality, and responding to systemic racism. Yet U.S. IRBs remain racially and ethnically homogeneous, even as gender diversity has improved. Little is known about IRB chairpersons’ perspectives on membership diversity and barriers to increasing it, as well as current institutional efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) within IRB membership. Methods We surveyed IRB chairpersons leading U.S. boards registered with the Office for Human Research Protections. Here, we focus exclusively on responses from a subset of 388 chairpersons of IRBs at universities and academic medical centers (AMCs). Results Board chairs were predominantly white and evenly split between men and women. Only about half reported that their boards had at least one member who is Black or African American (51%), Asian (56%), or Hispanic (48%), with 85% of university/AMC boards comprised entirely (15%) or mostly (70%) of white members. Most IRB chairpersons (64%) reported satisfaction with the current diversity of their membership. Participants largely agreed that considering diversity in the selection of IRB members is important (91%), including to improve the quality of IRB deliberation (80%), with an emphasis on racial/ethnic (85%) and gender diversity (74%). Most participants (80%) reported some type of active DEI effort regarding board membership at their university/AMC and just over half (57%) expressed satisfaction with these efforts. Conclusions Our national survey found that although university/AMC IRB chairpersons report valuing diversity in board membership, it may be lacking in key areas. Going forward, it will be important to specify clear reasons for diversity in the IRB context, as well to establish targets for acceptable levels of board diversity and to match DEI efforts to those targets.

Practices and challenges of community engagement in health research in Ethiopia: a qualitative study

ObjectiveThe role of the community in the research process in Ethiopia has not been documented. This study aims to explore the existing practices and challenges of community engagement in health...

"By only considering the end product it means that our participation has always been in vain": Defining benefits in HIV vaccine trials in Tanzania.

Debates about what constitutes benefits in human research continue to be less informed due to a lack of empirical evidence from the developing world. This study aimed to explore what constitutes benefits in HIV vaccine trials in Tanzania and examine inherent ethical implications. A qualitative case study design was deployed and a total of 29 purposively selected study participants comprising of experienced researchers, institutional review board members and community advisory board members were included. Collected data were analyzed by thematic analysis aided by computer software: MAXQDA version 20.4.0. The study findings indicate that there is a growing appreciation of benefits beyond actual vaccines to include 1) capacity building at individual, community, institutional and regulatory levels; and 2) non-capacity building related benefits such as strengthened collaborations, ancillary care and employment opportunities. So, as the struggle for viable HIV vaccines continues, other benefits that have accrued from such trials are not to be blindsided especially for developing countries like Tanzania.

How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?

Background Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP “quality, effectiveness, and efficiency” (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. Methods We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization’s approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. Results Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. Conclusions The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.

How Should Representation of Subjects With LEP Become More Equitable in Clinical Trials?

Underrepresentation of individuals with limited English proficiency (LEP) who speak Spanish is ongoing in phase 3 biomedical clinical trials and exacerbates health inequity. This article suggests strategies for increasing representation of Spanish speakers in clinical rials by emphasizing the importance of early engagement with Spanish language communities, inclusive participant recruitment, and collaborative trial design and implementation. Although investigators and institutions administering government-funded research must meet federal requirements for language assistance, journal editors, peer reviewers, institutional review board members, academic health centers, and all beneficiaries of the biomedical and behavioral research enterprise in the United States must motivate linguistic inclusion.

Composition and capacity of Institutional Review Boards, and challenges experienced by members in ethics review processes in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: An exploratory qualitative study.

Few studies in sub-Saharan Africa evaluate Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) capacity. The study aims to explore the composition of IRBs, training, and challenges experienced in the ethics review processes by members of research institutions and universities in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Our findings indicate that most IRBs members were trained on research ethics and good clinical practice. However, majority perceived the trainings as basic. IRB members faced several challenges including: investigators wanting rapid review; time pressure; investigators not following checklists; limited expertise in reviewing clinical trials, studies on genetics, and traditional medicine; lack of IRB offices for administrative work; competing tasks; limited staffing and the lack of a standardized review system. There is need for advanced training on research ethics to meet the evolving research needs. In addition, investments in IRBs are needed in terms of funding, and physical and human resources in Addis Ababa and Ethiopia in general.

The role of community advisory boards in community-based HIV clinical trials: a qualitative study from Tanzania

BackgroundCommunity Advisory Boards (CAB) have become essential organs of involving communities in HIV clinical trials especially in developing countries. However, limited empirical evidence exists on the role of CABs in low and middle-income countries including Tanzania. This study aims at exploring the role of CABs in community-based HIV clinical trials conducted in Tanzania.MethodologyWe adopted a phenomenological approach to purposefully select HIV clinical trial stakeholders. These included CAB members, researchers and Institutional Review Board (IRB) members in Tanzania. We conducted In-depth Interviews (IDIs) with ten participants and three Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with eighteen participants. The data were thematically analyzed with the aid of MAXQDA software version 20.2.1.ResultsThe findings indicate that at every stage of implementation of a community-based HIV clinical trial, a functioning CAB is important for its success. This importance is based on contextualization of the informed consent process and protocol, managing rumours in the community, weighing trial risks and benefits, sensitizing the community, assisting participant recruitment, tracing and retention. However, being perceived as financial beneficiaries than community representatives emerged as a challenge to CAB members.ConclusionThe study empirically indicates the need for functioning CABs in every stage of implementation of community-based HIV clinical trials. The roles of which are interwoven in serving research goals and protecting the interests of the community and that of trial participants.

Ethical guidelines and regulations in conducting clinical research in children: A critical appraisal

Conducting clinical research in children poses significant challenges with regard to several ethical issues, such as informed consent and protection from harm. Notwithstanding, children need to participate in research to address health issues that affect them but such research aims must be balanced with the safety and well-being of the participants. While being attentive to mitigating risks and providing the right support, researchers can ensure that children feel respected and can participate safely. The informed consent of parents or legal guardians should be obtained, preferably in writing, stating all the features of the research that may affect their willingness to allow the child to participate. Because of their vulnerabilities and the need to be protected from the risks associated with any kind of research, there has been increased global concern toward the involvement of children in research practice. As a general principle, although parents or guardians may be asked to consent on behalf of a child, depending on the child’s cognitive ability and the nature of the research, a refusal of assent or consent to participate should always over-rule the parent’s or guardian’s consent. To ensure proper ethical conduct of research in children, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or Research Ethics Committees (REC) will be required to provide ongoing monitoring of pediatric research, especially in the vulnerable population, since there may be a tendency for undue inducement or coercion, which could make parents/guardians consent to their children participating in a research and that exposes them to substantial risk. Similarly, it will be important to assess whether the approval of pediatric research, especially nonbeneficial research, should require a super majority, rather than the simple majority of IRB members required under current international regulation. This article provides an insight into the ethical guidelines and principles in conducting clinical research in children.