Challenges and recommendations to improve institutional review boards' review of community-engaged research proposals: A scoping review

Academic and community investigators conducting community-engaged research (CEnR) are often met with challenges when seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This scoping review aims to identify challenges and recommendations for CEnR investigators and community partners working with IRBs....

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of clinical and translational science 2023, Vol.7 (1), p.e93-e93, Article e93
Main Authors: Onakomaiya, Deborah, Pan, Janet, Roberts, Timothy, Tan, Holly, Nadkarni, Smiti, Godina, Marina, Park, Jo, Fraser, Marilyn, Kwon, Simona C, Schoenthaler, Antoinette, Islam, Nadia
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
barriers and facilitators
Collaboration
Community
community participation
community-based participatory research
community-engaged research
Health disparities
Implementation, Policy and Community Engagement
Institutional review board
Participatory research
recommendations
Research ethics
Research methodology
Researchers
Review
Review boards
Software
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Academic and community investigators conducting community-engaged research (CEnR) are often met with challenges when seeking Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. This scoping review aims to identify challenges and recommendations for CEnR investigators and community partners working with IRBs. Peer-reviewed articles that reported on CEnR, specified study-related challenges, and lessons learned for working with IRBs and conducted in the United States were included for review. Fifteen studies met the criteria and were extracted for this review. Four challenges identified (1) Community partners not being recognized as research partners (2) Cultural competence, language of consent forms, and literacy level of partners; (3) IRBs apply formulaic approaches to CEnR; & (4) Extensive delays in IRB preparation and approval potentially stifle the relationships with community partners. Recommendations included (1) Training IRBs to understand CEnR principles to streamline and increase the flexibility of the IRB review process; (2) Identifying influential community stakeholders who can provide support for the study; and (3) Disseminating human subjects research training that is accessible to all community investigator to satisfy IRB concerns. Findings from our study suggest that IRBs can benefit from more training in CEnR requirements and methodologies.
ISSN:2059-8661
2059-8661
DOI:10.1017/cts.2023.516