Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Editorial
. 2017 Aug 18:2:14.
doi: 10.1186/s41073-017-0038-7. eCollection 2017.

Improving the process of research ethics review

Stacey A Page  1   2 , Jeffrey Nyeboer  3
Affiliations
Editorial

Improving the process of research ethics review

Stacey A Page et al. Res Integr Peer Rev. .

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Applied ethics; Institutional Review Boards; Medical research; Research Ethics Boards; Research Ethics Committees; Research ethics.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Basic business activity model
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Research ethics activity model
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Beecher HK. Ethics and clinical research. NEMJ. 1966;274(24):1354–60. doi: 10.1056/NEJM196606162742405. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kim WO. Institutional review board (IRB) and ethical issues in clinical research. Korean J Anesthesiol. 2012;62(1):3–12. doi: 10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, December 2014. http://www.ethics.gc.ca/eng/index/. Accessed 21 Jun 2017.
    1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects as amended by the 64th WMA General Assembly, Fortaleza, Brazil, October 2013 U.S. Department of Health. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-pr.... Accessed 21 Jun 2017.
    1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HHS.gov, Office for Human Research Protections. 45 CFR 46. Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45. Public Welfare. Department of Health and Human Services. Part 46. Protection of Human Subjects. Revised January 15, 2009. Effective July 14, 2009. Subpart A. Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects. 2009. https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/45-cfr-46/. Accessed 21 Jun 2017.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources