Medically Complex Children in Foster Care: Do Research "Protections" Make This "Vulnerable Population" More Vulnerable?

Children in foster care are considered a "vulnerable population" in clinical care and research, with good reason. These children face multiple medical, psychological, and social risks that obligate the child welfare and healthcare systems to protect them from further harms. An unintended consequence of the "vulnerable population" designation for children in foster care is that it may impose barriers on tracking and studying their health that creates gaps in knowledge that are key to their receipt of medical care and good outcomes. These gaps in knowledge have implications for justice, beneficence, and maleficence and serve to undermine "protection" of this population. Here we review the challenges of research regarding children in foster care, particularly medically complex children, and offer specific recommendations to include children in foster care in medical research.

Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research.

This article presents a review of the literature, summarizes current initiatives, and provides a heuristic for assessing the effectiveness of a range of institutional review board (IRB) collaborative strategies that can reduce the regulatory burden of ethics review while ensuring protection of human subjects, with a particular focus on international research. Broad adoption of IRB collaborative strategies will reduce regulatory burdens posed by overlapping oversight mechanisms and has the potential to enhance human subjects protections.

Building research capacity in Botswana: a randomized trial comparing training methodologies in the Botswana ethics training initiative.

BACKGROUND: Little empirical data are available on the extent to which capacity-building programs in research ethics prepare trainees to apply ethical reasoning skills to the design, conduct, or review of research. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in Botswana in 2010 to assess the effectiveness of a case-based intervention using email to augment in-person seminars. METHODS: University faculty and current and prospective IRB/REC members took part in a semester-long training program in research ethics. Participants attended two 2-day seminars and were assigned at random to one of two on-line arms of the trial. Participants in both arms completed on-line international modules from the Collaborative Institutional Training Initiative. Between seminars, intervention-arm participants were also emailed a weekly case to analyze in response to set questions; responses and individualized faculty feedback were exchanged via email. Tests assessing ethics knowledge were administered at the start of each seminar. The post-test included an additional section in which participants were asked to identify the ethical issues highlighted in five case studies from a list of multiple-choice responses. Results were analyzed using regression and ANOVA. RESULTS: Of the 71 participants (36 control, 35 intervention) enrolled at the first seminar, 41 (57.7%) attended the second seminar (19 control, 22 intervention). In the intervention arm, 19 (54.3%) participants fully completed and 8 (22.9%) partially completed all six weekly cases. The mean score was higher on the post-test (30.3/40) than on the pre-test (28.0/40), and individual post- and pre-test scores were highly correlated (r = 0.65, p < 0.0001). Group assignment alone did not have an effect on test scores (p > 0.84), but intervention-arm subjects who completed all assigned cases answered an average of 3.2 more questions correctly on the post-test than others, controlling for pre-test scores (p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Completion of the case-based intervention improved respondents' test scores, with those who completed all six email cases scoring roughly 10% better than those who failed to complete this task and those in the control arm. There was only suggestive evidence that intensive case work improved ethical issue identification, although there was limited ability to assess this outcome due to a high drop-out rate.

Key lessons and strategies for implementing single IRB review in the Trial Innovation Network.

The Trial Innovation Network has established an infrastructure for single IRB review in response to federal policies. The Network's single IRB (sIRBs) have successfully supported over 70 multisite studies via more than 800 reliance arrangements. This has generated several lessons learned that can benefit the national clinical research enterprise, as we work to improve the conduct of clinical trials. These lessons include distinguishing the roles of the single IRB from institutional Human Research Protections programs, establishing a consistent sIRB review model, standardizing collection of local context and supplemental, study-specific information, and educating and empowering lead study teams to support their sites.