Abstract
Under US federal regulations, participants providing informed consent must receive information regarding whom to contact in case of a research-related injury or complaint. Although informed consent processes routinely direct participants to contact institutional review boards (IRBs) with questions or concerns, there has been little empirical study of the ways in which IRBs act to resolve participants' research-related complaints. This article explores available literature on participant complaints, considers the responsibilities of IRBs in dispute resolution, and outlines a research agenda. As a case study, this review considers disputes arising from HIV/AIDS research, focusing on novel issues arising from biomedical HIV prevention trials.
Subject
Communication,Education,Social Psychology
Reference83 articles.
1. A Systematic Review of the Empirical Literature Evaluating IRBs: What We Know and What We Still Need to Learn
2. Increasing Minority Research Participation Through Community Organization Outreach
3. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs Inc. (2011). 2011 Metrics on Human Research Protection Program Performance (21 pp.). Washington, DC: AAHRPP.
4. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs Inc. (2013). Evaluation Instrument for Accreditation (131 pp). Washington, DC: AAHRPP.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献，注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献，订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献