Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33974244›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2021

Institutional Review Board Preparedness for Disaster Research: a Practical Approach.

Joan P Packenham, Richard Rosselli, Alice Fothergill, Julia Slutsman, Steve Ramsey, Janet E Hall, Aubrey Miller

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Returning Individual Tap Water Testing Results to Research Study Participants after a Wildfire Disaster.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Joan P PackenhamOffice of Human Research Compliance, Clinical Research Branch and Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, 111 T.W. Alexander Dr., Mail Drop CRU-02, Research Triangle Park, Durham, NC, 27709, USA. packenhm@niehs.nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6917-9828
Richard RosselliSocial & Scientific Systems, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Alice FothergillCollege of Arts and Sciences, Department of Sociology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Julia SlutsmanOffice of Director, Office of Extramural Research, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Steve RamseySocial & Scientific Systems, Inc., Silver Spring, MD, USA.
Janet E HallClinical Research Branch and Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA.
Aubrey MillerOffice of Director, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Durham, NC, USA.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences · USSocial and Scientific Systems (United States) · USNational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Vermont · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewDisasters are becoming more common and challenge national and global resiliency and response efforts. As a result, government agencies have increased interest in disaster research to understand their environmental impact and health-related consequences. With the research field greatly expanding, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are being asked to review research protocols aimed at assessing health risks, exposures, and outcomes from disaster survivors. Few IRBs have experience reviewing disaster research protocols. This article describes approaches for IRB preparedness in reviewing disaster research. RECENT

findingsFrom a human research protections perspective, primary attention has focused on vulnerability of individuals and/or populations affected by a disaster who may serve as research participants [3, 4]. From our review of the current literature, there is a lack of best practices and/or guidance for IRBs in the review of disaster research protocols. The growth of the disaster research field has brought more attention to potential ethical concerns of disaster research studies. Disaster survivors, responders, and those that assist in cleanup and remedial efforts may be left with significant unmet needs and long-term physical and emotional challenges as a result of their experiences. It is important for IRBs and investigators to collaboratively address how best to protect the welfare of individuals and communities affected by a disaster. A new approach is needed to systematically consider the various factors relevant to an assessment of human research protection issues following disasters.

Indexed as

DisastersEthics Committees, ResearchHumansDisaster researchEthicsInstitutional Review Board (IRB)PreparednessProtocol developmentVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID33974244
PMCPMC8111380
OpenAlexW3162808906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.