A Cross Sectional Survey of Recruitment Practices, Supports, and Perceived Roles for Unaffiliated and Non-scientist Members of IRBs

References

• Allison, R. D., L. J. Abbott, and A. Wichman. 2008. Roles and experiences of non-scientist Institutional Review Board members at the National Institutes of Health. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 30 (5):8–13.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, E. E. 2006. A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist Institutional Review Board members. Accountability in Research 13 (2):135–55. doi: 10.1080/08989620600654027.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Arkind, J., S. Likumahuwa-Ackman, N. Warren, K. Dickerson, L. Robbins, K. Norman, and J. E. DeVoe. 2015. Lessons learned from developing a patient engagement panel: An OCHIN report. Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine: JABFM 28 (5):632–8. doi: 10.3122/jabfm.2015.05.150009.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barton, E., L. Thominet, R. Boeder, and S. Primeau. 2018. Do community members have an effective voice in the ethical deliberation of a behavioral Institutional Review Board? Journal of Business and Technical Communication 32 (2):154–97. doi: 10.1177/1050651917746460.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berry, S. H., D. Khodyakov, D. M. Grant, A. Medndoza-Graf, E. Bromley, G. Karimi, … S. Newberry. 2019. Profile of Institutional Review Board characteristics prior to the 2019 implementation of the revised common rule. Santa Monica, California, USA: RAND Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Black, A., K. Strain, C. Wallsworth, S.-G. Charlton, W. Chang, K. McNamee, and C. Hamilton. 2018. What constitutes meaningful engagement for patients and families as partners on research teams? Journal of Health Services Research & Policy 23 (3):158–167. doi: 10.1177/1355819618762960.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Canadian Institutes of Health Research. 2011. Canada’s strategy for patient-oriented research. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/44000.html
   Google Scholar
• Cargill, S. S. 2018. What can IRBs learn from CABs? A qualitative analysis of the experiences of recruitment and training of nonscientist members on research review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 13 (1):88–94. doi: 10.1177/1556264617742237.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Concannon, T. W., S. Grant, V. Welch, J. Petkovic, J. Selby, S. Crowe, A. Synnot, R. Greer-Smith, E. Mayo-Wilson, E. Tambor, et al. 2019. Practical guidance for involving stakeholders in health research. Journal of General Internal Medicine 34 (3):458–63. doi: 10.1007/s11606-018-4738-6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cornwall, A., and R. Jewkes. 1995. What is participatory research? Social Science & Medicine (1982) 41 (12):1667–76. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(95)00127-s.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gremillion, H., M. Tolich, and R. Bathurst. 2015. Lay members of New Zealand research ethics committees: Who and what do they represent? Research Ethics 11 (2):82–97. doi: 10.1177/1747016115581723.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, P. A., R. Taylor, B. L. Minor, V. Elliott, M. Fernandez, L. O’Neal, L. Mcleod, F. Delacqua, J. Kirby, S. Duda, et al. 2019. The REDCap consortium: Building an international community of software partners. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 95:103208. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2019.103208.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, P. A., R. Taylor, R. Thielke, J. Payne, N. Gonzalez, and J. G. Conde. 2009. Research electronic data capture (REDCap) – A metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. Journal of Biomedical Informatics 42 (2):377–81. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hull, S. C., and D. R. Wilson Dine. 2017. Beyond belmont: Ensuring respect for AI/AN communities through tribal IRBs, laws, and policies. The American Journal of Bioethics : AJOB 17 (7):60–2. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1328531.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humphreys, S. J. 2012. The work of phase I ethics committees: Expert and lay membership. (DHRes), Hatfield, UK: University of Hertfordshire i.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corporation. 2021. IBM SPSS statistics for windows (Version 28.0). Armonk, New York: IBM Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Klitzman, R. 2012. Institutional Review Board community members: Who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent? Academic Medicine: journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 87 (7):975–81. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182578b54.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lidz, C. W., L. J. Simon, A. V. Seligowski, S. Myers, W. Gardner, P. J. Candilis, R. Arnold, and P. S. Appelbaum. 2012. The participation of community members on medical Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics: JERHRE 7 (1):1–6. doi: 10.1525/jer.2012.7.1.1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martin del Campo, F., J. Casado, P. Spencer, and H. Strelnick. 2013. The development of the Bronx Community Research Review Board: A pilot feasibility project for a model of community consultation. Progress in Community Health Partnerships: Research, Education, and Action 7 (3):341–52. doi: 10.1353/cpr.2013.0037.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Microsoft Corporation. 2018. Microsoft Excel. Washington: Microsoft Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Paul, J., R. Davidson, C. Johnstone, M. Loong, J. Matecsa, A. Guttmann, and M. J. Schull. 2020. Public engagement can change your research, but how can it change your research institution? ICES case study. International Journal of Population Data Science 5 (3):1364. doi: 10.23889/ijpds.v5i3.1364.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Porter, J. P. 1986. What are the ideal characteristics of unaffiliated/nonscientist IRB members? IRB: Ethics & Human Research 8 (3):1–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sandelowski, M. 2000. Whatever happened to qualitative description. Research in Nursing and Health 23:334–40.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sengupta, S., and B. Lo. 2003. The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of Institutional Review Boards. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 78 (2):212–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shore, N., A. Park, P. Castro, E. Wat, L. Sablan-Santos, M. L. Isaacs, E. Freeman, J. M. Cooks, E. Drew, and S. D. Seifer. 2014. Redefining research ethics review: Case studies of five community-led models. Seattle, WA: Community-Campus Partnerships for Health.
   Google Scholar
• Solomon, S. 2016. Too many rationales, not enough reason: A call to examine the goals of including lay members on Institutional Review Boards. Accountability in Research 23 (1):4–22. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2014.956865.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Speers, M. A., and S. Rose. 2012. Labeling Institutional Review Board members does not lead to better protections for research participants. Academic Medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 87 (7):842–4. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318257f115.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assisstant Secretary for Health & Office for Human Research Protection. 2018. Subpart A of 45 CFR Part 46: Basic HHS policy for protection of human subjects. Office for Human research Protections.
   Google Scholar