ReviewFrontiers in public health2023
Aligning clinical research ethics with community-engaged and participatory research in the United States.
Review in Frontiers in public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The professional role in ethical review of research in which boards review proposed research involving human beings continues to evolve. The scholarly literature on institutional review boards in academic centers of the United States, at which a majority of the community engaged and participatory research emanates and is reviewed, suggests the need to implement changes in board education, the infrastructure supporting review, and the accountability of review. The recommendations for change advanced in this perspective involve enhancing reviewer knowledge of local community contexts and developing an infrastructure that supports engagement in and dialogue among individuals involved in community-academic research to inform ethical review and the assessment of review outcomes. Additionally, recommendations regarding putting an institutional infrastructure in place are advanced in order to sustain community engaged and participatory research. The infrastructure can also support the collection and review of outcome data as the foundation of accountability. The recommendations outlined intend to improve clinical research ethics reviews of community-engaged and participatory research.
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.