Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37125052›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and translational science2023

Challenges and recommendations to improve institutional review boards' review of community-engaged research proposals: A scoping review.

Deborah Onakomaiya, Janet Pan, Timothy Roberts, Holly Tan, Smiti Nadkarni, Marina Godina, Jo Park, Marilyn Fraser, Simona C Kwon, Antoinette Schoenthaler and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and translational science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Community-Engaged Research in Early Home Visiting: A Scoping Review of Peer-Reviewed Literature.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. The importance of rigor in pharmacy research: Challenges and solutions.Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The Need for IRB Leadership to Address the New Ethical Challenges of Research with Highly Portable Neuroimaging Technologies.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

11 authors.

Deborah OnakomaiyaVilcek Institute of Graduate Biomedical Sciences, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4548-0098
Janet PanDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Timothy RobertsDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7026-7435
Holly TanUniversity of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Smiti NadkarniDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Marina GodinaHuman Research Protections, Office of Science and Research, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jo ParkNational Asian Pacific Center on Aging, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marilyn FraserArthur Ashe Institute for Urban Health, New York, NY, USA.
Simona C KwonDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Antoinette SchoenthalerDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Nadia IslamDepartment of Population Health, NYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.

Funding

Project-005UL1TR001445 · NCATS · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI BREDELLA, MIRIAM ANTOINETTE, HOCHMAN, JUDITH S · 2015 to 2025
$103.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001445
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Academic and community investigators conducting community-engaged research (CEnR) are often met with challenges when seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This scoping review aims to identify challenges and recommendations for CEnR investigators and community partners working with IRBs. Peer-reviewed articles that reported on CEnR, specified study-related challenges, and lessons learned for working with IRBs and conducted in the United States were included for review. Fifteen studies met the criteria and were extracted for this review. Four challenges identified (1) Community partners not being recognized as research partners (2) Cultural competence, language of consent forms, and literacy level of partners; (3) IRBs apply formulaic approaches to CEnR; & (4) Extensive delays in IRB preparation and approval potentially stifle the relationships with community partners. Recommendations included (1) Training IRBs to understand CEnR principles to streamline and increase the flexibility of the IRB review process; (2) Identifying influential community stakeholders who can provide support for the study; and (3) Disseminating human subjects research training that is accessible to all community investigator to satisfy IRB concerns. Findings from our study suggest that IRBs can benefit from more training in CEnR requirements and methodologies.

Indexed as

barriers and facilitatorscommunity-based participatory researchcommunity-engaged researchcommunity participationInstitutional review boardrecommendations

Identifiers

PMID37125052
PMCPMC10130837

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.