ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2012
The participation of community members on medical institutional review boards.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Licensing competent children to assist institutional review boards.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- Nonscientific Members of Institutional Review Boards.Asian bioethics review · 2025Article
- Acknowledging Complexity and Reimagining IRBs: A Reply to Discussions of the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2023Article
- Ethics Committees: Structure, Roles, and Issues.Journal of Korean medical science · 2023Review
- A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs.AJOB empirical bioethics · 2023Article
- Perspectives of non-specialists on the potential to serve as ethics committee members.The Journal of international medical research · 2019Article
- Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.Ethics & human research · 2019Article
- The West African experience in establishing steering committees for better collaboration between researchers and decision-makers to increase the use of health research findings.Health research policy and systems · 2017Article
- Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2016Article
- Towards a balanced approach to identifying conflicts of interest faced by institutional review boards.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2015Article
- Those Responsible for Approving Research Studies Have Poor Knowledge of Research Study Design: a Knowledge Assessment of Institutional Review Board Members.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2015Article
- Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2015Article
- Perceptions and experiences of community members serving on institutional review boards: a questionnaire based study.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2015Article
- Community engagement in US biobanking: multiplicity of meaning and method.Public health genomics · 2014Article
- Local IRBs vs. federal agencies: shifting dynamics, systems, and relationships.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2012Article
- (Epistemic) Injustice and Resistance in Canadian Research Ethics Governance.Ethics & human researchArticle
- Beyond Research Ethics: Novel Approaches of 3 Major Public Health Institutions to Provide Ethics Input on Public Health Practice Activities.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The goal of this study was to describe the contributions of community members (unaffiliated members) who serve on institutional review boards (IRBs) at large medical research centers and to compare their contributions to those of other IRB members. We observed and audiotaped 17 panel meetings attended by community members and interviewed 15 community members, as well as 152 other members and staff. The authors coded transcripts of the panel meetings and reviewed the interviews of the community members. Community members played a lesser role as designated reviewers than other members. They were infrequently primary reviewers and expressed hesitation about the role. As secondary or tertiary reviewers, they were less active participants than other members in those roles. Community members were more likely to focus on issues related to confidentiality when reviewing an application than other reviewers. When they were not designated reviewers, however, they played a markedly greater role and their discussion focused more on consent disclosures than other reviewers. They did not appear to represent the community so much as to provide a nonscientific view of the protocol and the consent form.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.