ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2016
Reimagining Human Research Protections for 21st Century Science.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Educating Students About Digital Health Research Ethics: Curricula Review and Expert Interview Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Applying a Digital Health Checklist and Readability Tools to Improve Informed Consent for Digital Health Research.Frontiers in digital health · 2021Article
- Using digital technologies in clinical trials: Current and future applications.Contemporary clinical trials · 2021Article
- Precision Health: The Role of the Social and Behavioral Sciences in Advancing the Vision.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2020Article
- Development of a decision-making checklist tool to support technology selection in digital health research.Translational behavioral medicine · 2020Article
- Expert Perspectives on Oversight for Unregulated mHealth Research: Empirical Data and Commentary.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2020Article
- Using Participatory Design to Inform the Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE) Commons.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Improving Informed Consent for Novel Vaccine Research in a Pediatric Hospital Setting Using a Blended Research-Design Approach.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2020Article
- Qualifying and quantifying the precision medicine rhetoric.BMC genomics · 2019Article
- Privacy-Preserving Methods for Feature Engineering Using Blockchain: Review, Evaluation, and Proof of Concept.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Review
- Building the case for actionable ethics in digital health research supported by artificial intelligence.BMC medicine · 2019Review
- Article
- NIH support of mobile, imaging, pervasive sensing, social media and location tracking (MISST) research: laying the foundation to examine research ethics in the digital age.NPJ digital medicine · 2018Article
- Application of Ethics for Providing Telemedicine Services and Information Technology.Medical archives (Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) · 2017Review
- Navigating Ethics in the Digital Age: Introducing Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE), a Tool for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
- Digital Medicine: A Primer on Measurement.Digital biomarkersReview
- A retrospective analysis of NIH-funded digital health research using social media platforms.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundEvolving research practices and new forms of research enabled by technological advances require a redesigned research oversight system that respects and protects human research participants.
objectiveOur objective was to generate creative ideas for redesigning our current human research oversight system.
methodsA total of 11 researchers and institutional review board (IRB) professionals participated in a January 2015 design thinking workshop to develop ideas for redesigning the IRB system.
resultsIdeas in 5 major domains were generated. The areas of focus were (1) improving the consent form and process, (2) empowering researchers to protect their participants, (3) creating a system to learn from mistakes, (4) improving IRB efficiency, and (5) facilitating review of research that leverages technological advances.
conclusionsWe describe the impetus for and results of a design thinking workshop to reimagine a human research protections system that is responsive to 21st century science.
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.