BACKGROUND: Research cites shortcomings and challenges facing research ethics committees in many regions across the world including Arab countries. This paper presents findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with research ethics committee (REC) chairs to explore their views on the challenges they face in their work with the oversight of research involving human populations.
METHODS: Virtual in-depth interviews were conducted with chairs (n = 11) from both biomedical and/or social-behavioral research ethics committees in six countries, transcribed, coded and subject to thematic analysis for recurring themes.
RESULTS: Two sets of recurring themes impede the work of the committees and pose concerns for the quality of the research applications: (1) procedures and committee level challenges such as heavy workload, variations in member qualification, impeding bureaucratic procedures, member overwork, and intersecting socio-cultural values in the review process; (2) inconsistencies in the researchers\' competence in both applied research ethics and research methodology as revealed by their applications.
CONCLUSIONS: Narratives of REC chairs are important to shed light on experiences and issues that are not captured in surveys, adding to the body of knowledge with implications for the region, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in other parts of the world. International research collaborations could benefit from the findings.

This research identifies the circumstances in which Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) are trusted by Australians to approve the use of genomic data - without express consent - and considers the impact of genomic data sharing settings, and respondent attributes, on public trust. Survey results (N = 3013) show some circumstances are more conducive to public trust than others, with waivers endorsed when future research is beneficial and when privacy is protected, but receiving less support in other instances. Still, results imply attitudes are influenced by more than these specific circumstances, with different data sharing settings, and participant attributes, affecting views. Ultimately, this research raises questions and concerns in relation to the criteria HRECs use when authorising waivers of consent in Australia.

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: Adolescent participation in health research studies is critical yet complex given the lack of clarity around issues such as consent. This study aimed to understand how those conducting research in Australia navigate research ethics in health research involving adolescents, through qualitative interviews.
METHODS: Purposive sampling was used to recruit 23 researchers involved in adolescent health research using semi-structured in-depth interviews. Interviews were conducted via Zoom and audio-recorded after obtaining informed consent. Thematic analysis was used to construct themes and data were organised using NVivo.
RESULTS: Two contrasting positions emerged from the data: (1) framing of adolescents as inherently vulnerable, their participation in research understood in terms of risk and protection and (2) adolescent engagement in research is understood in terms of empowerment, emphasising their capacity to make decisions about research participation. We traced these positions through three key themes, particularly in relation to the role of ethics committees: (1) competing positions as a result of inferior or superior knowledge about adolescent lives, (2) competing positions resulting in a risk averse or an empowerment approach, and (3) reflections on processes of obtaining consent which involves gatekeeping and tokenism.
CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the contentious topic of navigating ethics committee requirements for the needs of adolescents. Majority of participants felt the current research ethics establishment is not favourable for researchers or adolescents themselves. While it is imperative that perceptions of ethics committees also be studied in the future, our study provides preliminary understanding of how experiences and perceptions shape how researchers interact with the research ethics establishment.

Many countries consider long-term implications for society.

OBJECTIVE: To examine Indigenous Governance of Data processes in Australian clinical registries.
METHODS: Audit (via desktop review and interviews) of registries in the Australian Register of Clinical Registries from 17 January 2022 to 30 April 2023.
METHODS: The number of clinical registries collecting ethnicity data, reporting Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander representation on registry governance or steering committees, and reporting human research ethics committee approval.
RESULTS: A total of 107 clinical registries were reviewed. Of these registries, 65 (61%) collected ethnicity data; when these were grouped by geographical coverage, those most likely to collect ethnicity data were binational (24/40 [60%]), national (19/26 [73%]) or state based (19/26 [73%]). Of the registries that collected ethnicity data, 29 (45%) classified their ethnicity item as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Only eight clinical registries (7%) reported Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander representation on their governance or steering committees. Human research ethics approval was reported in 94 registries (88%), with only 11 (12%) having Aboriginal human research ethics committee approval.
CONCLUSIONS: Significant variability is evident in clinical registry recording of Indigenous governance of data, meaning that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities remain invisible in data which is used to inform policy, clinical models of care, health services and initiatives. Radical change is required to facilitate meaningful change in quality indicators for clinical registries nationally.

暂无摘要。

A leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection- and efficiency-based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is increasingly common in routine clinical practice. As tools to quantify symptoms and health status, PROMs play an important role in focusing health care on outcomes that matter to patients. The uses of PROM data are myriad, ranging from clinical care to survey-based research and quality improvement. Discerning the boundaries between these use cases can be challenging for institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we provide a framework for classifying the three primary PROM use cases (clinical care, human subjects research, and quality improvement) and discuss the level of IRB oversight (if any) necessary for each. One of the most important considerations for IRB staff is whether PROMs are being used primarily for clinical care and thus do not constitute human subjects research. We discuss characteristics of PROMs implemented primarily for clinical care, focusing on: data platform; survey location; questionnaire length; patient interface; and clinician interface. We also discuss IRB oversight of projects involving the secondary use of PROM data that were collected during the course of clinical care, which span human subjects research and quality improvement. This framework provides practical guidance for IRB staff as well as clinicians who use PROMs as communication aids in routine clinical practice.

Online participant recruitment (\"crowdsourcing\") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers\' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.