Challenges and Lessons from Conducting a Community-Engaged Evaluation of a Community Advisory Board-A Case Study from Flint.

Community-engaged research often poses challenges due to exactly those qualities that make it desirable: it provides a new model of research that differs in many ways from top-down, university-led, prospectively designed approaches. While many have discussed the challenges to conducting community-engaged research, few have provided precise and generalizable lessons for how to surmount these challenges. Here we discuss the challenges experienced in a project that was community-engaged at three levels: 1) a research team consisting of an academic and a community partner as well as a community and academic research assistant, 2) the research team engaged with a Community Advisory Board called the CBOP-CERB (Community Based Organization Partners-Community Ethics Research Board) throughout the project, and 3) the research involved recruiting community participants from an area with a historical distrust of researchers and research: Flint Michigan. We also discuss administrative challenges that this multilevel community-engagement posed. Most important, we provide practical lessons in order for future community-engaged research to avoid or mitigate many of these challenges.

What Is "Key Information"? Consideration of the Reasons People Do or Do Not Take Part in Research.

We performed a qualitative review of 50 consent forms posted on Clinicaltrials.gov, examining the content of key information sections. We found that key information disclosures are typically focused on procedures, risks, potential benefits, and alternatives. Drawing upon reviews of the large literature examining the reasons people do or do not take part in research, we propose that these disclosures should be based more directly on what we know to be the real reasons why people choose to take part or refuse participation. We propose key information language for consideration by researchers and institutional review boards.

Exercise oncology clinical trials during treatments: a commentary to address the safety concerns of human subjects regulatory reviewers and committees.

Exercise oncology clinical trials contribute to the advancement of our scientific knowledge and to the safety and care of patients diagnosed with cancer. Nevertheless, regulatory reviewers and committees may not be familiar with the well-documented long-term health benefits and safety of the regular practice of physical activity. Moreover, they may not see how the benefits outweigh the risks in the context where patients diagnosed with cancer are typically seen as vulnerable. Therefore, we would like to provide a purpose-built overview of exercise oncology clinical trials for members involved in institutional review committees, including the Scientific Review Committee (SRC), the Institutional Review Board (IRB), and the Data Safety Monitoring Committee (DSMC) to facilitate a greater understanding of the safety and benefits of physical activity during cancer treatments. Communication is key to improve the success of exercise oncology clinical trials, which are vital for patients diagnosed with cancer.

Evaluating the Impact and Effectiveness of Flint's Community Ethics Review Board (CBOP-CERB): A Pilot Study.

In recognition of the importance of evaluation for funding, research, and quality improvement, a longstanding Community Advisory Board in Flint Michigan embarked on a process to evaluate their impact. The Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)-Community Ethics Review Board (CERB) engaged a research team composed of an academic researcher (Solomon Cargill) and a community partner (Spencer) to obtain funding, design and implement an evaluation of the CBOP-CERB. This evaluation study yielded two evaluations of the CBOP-CERB, one with researchers who had engaged with the CBOP-CERB and the other with Flint area community residents. The results of these two evaluations can serve to show other Community Advisory Boards how to establish and expand their impact, establish their worth for future funding, and how to articulate, evaluate, and achieve their goals.

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients. METHODS: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws. RESULTS: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones. CONCLUSION: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Why and when should we cluster randomize?

A cluster randomized trial is defined as a randomized trial in which intact social units of individuals are randomized rather than individuals themselves. Outcomes are observed on individual participants within clusters (such as patients). Such a design allows assessing interventions targeting cluster-level participants (such as physicians), individual participants or both. Indeed, many interventions assessed in cluster randomized trials are actually complex ones, with distinct components targeting different levels. For a cluster-level intervention, cluster randomization is an obvious choice: the intervention is not divisible at the individual-level. For individual-level interventions, cluster randomization may nevertheless be suitable to prevent group contamination, for logistical reasons, to enhance participants' adherence, or when objectives pertain to the cluster level. An unacceptable reason for cluster randomization would be to avoid obtaining individual consent. Indeed, participants in cluster randomized trials have to be protected as in any type of trial design. Participants may be people from whom data are collected, but they may also be people who are intervened upon, and this includes both patients and physicians (for example, physicians receiving training interventions). Consent should be sought as soon as possible, although there may exist situations where participants may consent only for data collection, not for being exposed to the intervention (because, for instance, they cannot opt-out). There may even be situations where participants are not able to consent at all. In this latter situation a waiver of consent must be granted by a research ethics committee.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW. METHODS: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW. RESULTS: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research. CONCLUSIONS: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

Lessons from studies of medication reduction in psychosis: giving participants accurate information about risk in psychiatric research trials.

All research needs ethical regulation, which is institutionalized in research ethics committees. The patient information sheet, approved by a research ethics committee, sets out what patients need to know to make an informed choice about research participation. However, guidance from research ethics committees is much less explicit about risk communication. In this commentary, the balance of risk in the patient information sheets from protocols of 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medication reduction in psychosis was compared with numbers needed to treat and harm from the literature. The patient information sheet omitted risk of excess death and incomplete recovery following relapse, and overestimated the anticipated benefits. All of these risks were demonstrated in the published results of 1 of the 2 RCTs. Quantifying and tabulating risk might improve patient information sheets.

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.

Risk Evaluation in Occupational Safety and Health Research: Results From a Benchmarking Exercise of Federal and Academic IRBs.

OBJECTIVE: Research involving working populations can pose unique ethical and risk evaluation challenges. The purpose of this benchmarking project was to assess how federal agencies and academic institutions approach the interpretation and application of key risk evaluation concepts in research involving workers in their places of employment. METHODS: Key informant interviews were conducted to ascertain current practices related to assessing soundness of research design, determining risk reasonableness and research relatedness of risks, and evaluating the risk of noninvasive clinical tests in occupational settings. RESULTS: There were noteworthy commonalities among the approaches described to review and address critical aspects of risk evaluation for occupational safety and health research involving human participants. CONCLUSIONS: The insights gleaned may help guide institutional review boards and Human Research Protection Programs as they consider the ethical issues of human subjects research in occupational settings.

The ethics of clinical research in the era of COVID-19.

There is an urgent need for increased understanding of COVID-19 and strategies for its prevention, treatment, and mitigation. All participants in the research enterprise, including institutional review boards, have an ethical duty to protect participants and ensure that the benefits gained from such research do not conflict with the core principles that guided researchers prior to the pandemic. In this review, we discuss the ethical issues surrounding initiation and conduct of clinical trials, focusing on novel COVID-19 therapeutic, vaccine, or biospecimen research, using the principles of autonomy, beneficence, and justice. We discuss strategies to manage the practical challenges associated with the conduct of clinical trials, with an emphasis on maintaining the rights and welfare of research participants.

The UK research ethics committee: Making the case for better serving the underserved - can we do better?

Research ethics committees exist internationally to review research proposals to protect the rights and safety of human participants and researchers involved in research. These committees recruit a panel of expert and lay members, mostly on an unpaid voluntary basis, with relevant scientific experience to appraise these studies. Contemporary data in the UK show that women and people over 55 years old are overrepresented in these committee panels in the Health Research Authority, suggesting that there are potential barriers to inclusivity and participation. A variety of global approaches to tackle these barriers include targeting specific populations, such as faith or community leaders, or implementing quotas have been adopted. Further research is needed to understand likely barriers preventing participation in research ethics committees in the UK and how they may be overcome.

Chapitre 2. L'autonomisation des comités nationaux d'éthique de la recherche en Afrique : perspective historique et enjeux actuels.

Since the 60s, and particularly after various scandals in the 90s, national research ethics committees in Africa have established themselves as key players in the field of international clinical research. Notably based on the principle of double ethical review, their existence has historically been aimed at preventing a form of ethical dumping, a temptation that still exists today on the part of some research promoters. While the international framework of “soft” law has favored their emergence and legitimacy, a legal and regulatory framework of “hard” law is also necessary at local level for each national research ethics committee, to ensure its proper functioning and the optimal fulfillment of its missions. The aim of this article is to analyze the similarities and differences between three national ethics committees in Africa, specifically the CNERS of Guinea, the CNERS of Benin and the CNESVS of Côte d’Ivoire, in terms of status, missions, legal or regulatory ground and, more generally, autonomy. This analysis will enable us, on the one hand, to take account of common logistical difficulties and, on the other, to go beyond differences in legal status and missions to define what enables this type of committee to fully exercise its role(s). Finally, this article proposes to model the various elements that contribute to the autonomy and resilience of a national research ethics committee, around a notion proposed on this occasion: the “circles of autonomy”.

Ethical Research and the Institutional Review Board: An Introduction.

Editor's note: This is the 20th article in a series on clinical research by nurses. The series is designed to be used as a resource for nurses to understand the concepts and principles essential to research. Each column will present the concepts that underpin evidence-based practice-from research design to data interpretation. To see all the articles in the series, go to https://links.lww.com/AJN/A204.

Impact of institutional review board stipulations on turnaround time for approvals of surgical studies.

BACKGROUND: We have examined the number and types of stipulations received following the submission of surgical study protocols to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for review, and their effect on turnaround time for approval. This analysis will enable our organization to improve the quality of applications and design of study protocols, which can streamline the approval process and increase efficiency of the startup phase for clinical research. METHODS: IRB stipulations for 48 surgical studies were analyzed. Various factors were assessed: surgical specialty, type of study by design, clinical trial phase, type of investigational product, type of IRB utilized (local or centralized), study complexity score, type of review (e.g., exempt, expedited, or full board), turnaround time, and number of stipulations received. Statistical analyses were performed to examine associations between the number/type of stipulations received during the IRB review process and any of the aforementioned study-related factors. RESULTS: For analyzed surgical studies, the number of stipulations allotted to a study and time taken for approval had moderate association with the complexity of the study. The turnaround time for approval was the highest for randomized, controlled trials and studies undergoing full board review. CONCLUSION: This study elucidates characteristics that are associated with increased time for IRB approval. Analysis of IRB stipulations can help improve the turnaround time for the approval process, increase efficiency of startup phase, and transition to execution phase faster, which will allow more time for enrollment of research subjects, and increase return on investment made into research and development programs.

Navigating Institutional Review Boards.

Obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval can be an overwhelming task, especially for new researchers. IRB approval can require many documents and steps. It is important to start the submission early, have patience throughout the process, and determine what can help expedite the process. Research cannot begin without IRB approval, which is necessary when working with human subjects. Ultimately, the researchers and IRB have the same goal of enabling good research with minimal subject risk. The goal of this article is to give an overview of the IRB for practitioners performing research in podiatric medicine and surgery.

Does a blended learning implementation package enhance HIV index case testing in Malawi? A protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Index case testing (ICT) is an evidence-based approach that efficiently identifies persons in need of HIV treatment and prevention services. In Malawi, delivery of ICT has faced challenges due to limited technical capacity of healthcare workers (HCWs) and clinical coordination. Digitisation of training and quality improvement processes presents an opportunity to address these challenges. We developed an implementation package that combines digital and face-to-face modalities (blended learning) to strengthen HCWs ICT skills and enhance quality improvement mechanisms. This cluster randomised controlled trial will assess the impact of the blended learning implementation package compared with the standard of care (SOC) on implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The study was conducted in 33 clusters in Machinga and Balaka districts, in Southern Malawi from November 2021 to November 2023. Clusters are randomised in a 2:1 ratio to the SOC versus blended learning implementation package. The SOC is composed of: brief face-to-face HCW ICT training and routine face-to-face facility mentorship for HCWs. The blended learning implementation package consists of blended teaching, role-modelling, practising, and providing feedback, and blended quality improvement processes. The primary implementation outcome is HCW fidelity to ICT over 1 year of follow-up. Primary service uptake outcomes include (a) index clients who participate in ICT, (b) contacts elicited, (c) HIV self-test kits provided for secondary distribution, (d) contacts tested and (e) contacts identified as HIV-positive. Service uptake analyses will use a negative binomial mixed-effects model to account for repeated measures within each cluster. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios examining the incremental cost of each person tested. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Malawi National Health Science Research Committee, the University of North Carolina and the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Boards approved the trial. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05343390.