ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2025
Ethical oversight in impact evaluations: External advisory committees to assess programming risks.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Social scientists not only conduct impact evaluations but also participate in the design and implementation of the programs being evaluated. While Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) oversee research activities, they do not assess risks posed by the interventions themselves. We propose establishing External Advisory Committees (EACs) to provide independent, expert oversight of programming risks. EACs complement IRBs by focusing on potential harms to participants and communities, offering dynamic risk assessments, and advising on program adaptations or termination. By providing impartial expertise, EACs help address potential conflicts of interest that may arise when researchers and implementers are invested in a program's continuation. We illustrate the value of EACs through our experience implementing a cross-border labor migration program in Niger. Our EAC provided crucial guidance on scaling up the intervention after a pilot study and adapting the program following an unexpected military coup. While EACs introduce additional costs and may limit researcher autonomy, they generate accountability and are particularly valuable for novel and politically sensitive interventions in fragile environments.
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.