Awareness of Federal Regulatory Mechanisms Relevant to Community-Engaged Research

Abstract

Few studies or investigators involved in community-engaged research or community-based participatory research have examined awareness and adoption of federal regulatory mechanisms. We conducted a survey of investigators affiliated with the 10 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities. A questionnaire designed to capture experience with the conduct and oversight of community-engaged research, and awareness of pertinent regulatory mechanisms, including Federalwide Assurances (FWAs), Individual Investigator Agreements (IIAs), and Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreements (IAAs), was completed by 101 respondents (68% response rate). Although most were aware of FWAs, only a minority of those surveyed reported knowledge of IAAs and IIAs and even fewer had used them in their research with community partners. Implications for future training and oversight are discussed.

Keywords

health disparities community-based participatory research community-engaged research IRB oversight regulation awareness

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

E. E.

Solomon

Heitman

DuBois

J. M.

Fisher

C. B.

Kost

R. G.

. . . Ross

L. F.

(2012). Research ethics education for community engaged research: A review and research agenda. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(2), 3-19.

Brown

Morello-Frosch

Brody

J. G.

Altman

R. G.

Rudel

R. A.

Senier

. . . Simpson

(2010). Institutional review board challenges related to community-based participatory research on human exposure to environmental toxins: A case study. Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, 9, Article 39.

Brugge

Missaghian

(2006). Protecting the Navajo people through tribal regulation of research. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12, 491-507.

Cartwright

J. C.

Hickman

S. E.

Bevan

Shupert

C. L.

(2004). Navigating federalwide assurance requirements when conducting research in community-based care settings. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 52, 1567-1571.

Clinical and Translational Science Awards Consortium, Community Engagement Key Function Committee Task Force on the Principles of Community Engagement. (2011). Principles of community engagement (2nd ed.) (NIH Publication 11-7782). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health.

Flicker

Travers

Guta

McDonald

Meagher

(2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 84, 478-493.

Guta

Nixon

Gahagan

Fielden

(2012). “Walking along beside the researcher”: How Canadian REBs/IRBs are responding to the needs of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7, 15-25.

Israel

B. A.

Schulz

A. J.

Parker

E. A.

Becker

A. B.

(1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202.

Keith-Spiegel

Tabachnick

(2006). What scientists want from their research ethics committee. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 1, 67-82.

10.

Lincoln

Y. S.

Tierney

W. G.

(2004). Qualitative research and institutional review boards. Qualitative Inquiry, 10, 219-234.

11.

Malone

R. E.

Yerger

V. B.

McGruder

Froelicher

(2006). “It’s like Tuskegee in reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1914-1919.

12.

Newgard

C. D.

Lewis

R. J.

(2002). The paradox of human subjects protection in research: Some thoughts on and experiences with the Federalwide Assurance Program. Academic Emergency Medicine, 9, 1426-1429.

13.

Ogden

(1999). Ethical review in community-based HIV/AIDS research. Canadian HIV-AIDS Policy & Law Newsletter/Canadian HIV-AIDS Legal Network = Reseau juridique canadien VIH-SIDA, 5, 39-40, 43-35.

14.

Schnarch

(2004). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research. Journal of Aboriginal Health, 1, 80-95.

15.

Shore

(2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2, 31-41.

16.

Whitney

S. N.

Alcser

Schneider

McCullough

L. B.

McGuire

A. L.

Volk

R. J.

(2008). Principal investigator views of the IRB system. International Journal of Medical Sciences, 5(2), 68-72.

17.

Wolf

L. E.

(2010). The research ethics committee is not the enemy: Oversight of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(4), 77-86.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.10 MB