Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28525924›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2017

Institutional review board training when patients and community members are engaged as researchers.

John M Westfall, Linda Zittleman, Maret Felzien, Marc Ringel, Alison Lakin, Don Nease, High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Medical genetics in developing countries in the Asia-Pacific region: challenges and opportunities.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2018
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

John M WestfallHigh Plains Research Network (HPRN), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Linda ZittlemanHigh Plains Research Network (HPRN), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Maret FelzienHPRN Community Advisory Council, Northeast Community College, English Teacher, Rooster Ranch, Farmer/Rancher, Sterling, CO, USA.
Marc RingelHigh Plains Research Network (HPRN), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Alison LakinColorado Multi-Institutional Review Board (COMIRB), University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
Don NeaseDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council

Funding

Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences InstituteUL1TR001082 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI SOKOL, RONALD J. · 2013 to 2017
$48.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001082
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patient engagement efforts often rely on a participatory research approach, which means engaging patients and community members in all aspects of research. As research team members, they require familiarity with the principles of human subject protection, privacy, and institutional review boards (IRB). However, the time required for individual IRB training may be a barrier to engaging community members in participatory research. As more community members participated in research, the State Networks of Colorado Practices and Partners (SNOCAP) was faced with finding a balance between including community members as part of the research team and the significant time commitment and institutional requirements for human subjects research oversight. Objective: Design and implement a community training on human subject protection in research. Methods: The SNOCAP team worked with the leadership from the Colorado Multi-Institutional Review Board (COMIRB) to develop a training programme that included the ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects. Results: The final training programme was based on the core principles of the Belmont Report: respect for persons, beneficence and justice. Privacy was taught using the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) national guidelines. Conclusions: The members of the High Plains Research Network Community Advisory Council were fully engaged in developing the training programme, as well as in the training itself. They were committed to the principles and guidelines for protecting the rights and welfare of human subjects. Patients and community members have become a critical part of our research team. They understand the principles of human subjects protection and privacy and incorporate these principles into their research activities.

Indexed as

Community-Based Participatory ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchHumansInformed ConsentPatient ParticipationPrivacyResearch SubjectsUnited StatesHuman subject protectioninstitutional review boardsparticipatory research

Identifiers

PMID28525924
PMCPMC6080564

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.