FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2085752955> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2085752955 endingPage "766" @default.
• W2085752955 startingPage "761" @default.
• W2085752955 abstract "Background Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been increasingly criticized for how they review protocols, but how IRBs perceive, and make decisions about, the quality of the science of protocols has not been examined. Purpose To explore how and when IRBs view and make decisions about the quality of the science of studies they review. Methods I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding) and interviewed IRB chairs, co-chairs, administrators, and a director from 34 IRBs (response rate = 55%), and an additional 7 members. Results Interviewees faced several ambiguities and questions concerning the quality of the science of protocols. IRBs are often not sure how and to what extent to evaluate the science of protocols, whether the science should be ‘good enough’ (and if so, what that means) versus as good as possible. Federal regulations state that IRBs should ensure that risks are minimized, and commensurate with benefits. Thus, at times IRBs feel that changing the science is ethically necessary. But IRBs also then struggle with whether to adopt a higher threshold (1) that social and thus scientific benefits be maximized and (2) that scientific efforts and resources should not be wasted. Committees face dilemmas – for example, if a ‘perfect’ study is not feasible. For protocols already approved elsewhere (e.g., by the NIH), IRBs vary in how much they feel they can request alterations, and sometimes make changes nonetheless. Larger institutional contexts and biases can shape these issues, and IRBs differ in how much they are ‘pro-research’, and have sufficient expertise. IRBs at times also approve studies despite reservations about the science. Limitations This study includes interviews with IRBs, but not observations of IRB meetings. Conclusions IRBs often face ambiguities and conflicting goals in assessing scientific quality. Many IRBs try to improve the science beyond what the regulations mandate. These data have important implications for improving practice, education, research, and policy." @default.
• W2085752955 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2085752955 creator A5021262299 @default.
• W2085752955 date "2013-09-02" @default.
• W2085752955 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2085752955 title "How good does the science have to be in proposals submitted to Institutional Review Boards? An Interview Study of Institutional Review Board personnel" @default.
• W2085752955 cites W1574799795 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W1870228376 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W1974817309 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W1996361420 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2003442882 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2008932278 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2009610549 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2015481161 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2016846631 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2033890227 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2035716019 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2039284981 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2047562441 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2051556928 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2073286967 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2085084420 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2123945981 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2133650606 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2139623473 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2149219686 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2157791740 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W2162341425 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W4233390441 @default.
• W2085752955 cites W4250126373 @default.
• W2085752955 doi "https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774513500080" @default.
• W2085752955 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/3918462" @default.
• W2085752955 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24000378" @default.
• W2085752955 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2085752955 type Work @default.
• W2085752955 sameAs 2085752955 @default.
• W2085752955 citedByCount "16" @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552016 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552017 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552018 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552019 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552020 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552021 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552022 @default.
• W2085752955 countsByYear W20857529552023 @default.
• W2085752955 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2085752955 hasAuthorship W2085752955A5021262299 @default.
• W2085752955 hasBestOaLocation W20857529552 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C204787440 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C2777106319 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C2779304628 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C2779530757 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C2780385302 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C39549134 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C111472728 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C11413529 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C118552586 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C138885662 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C142724271 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C144024400 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C15744967 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C17744445 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C204787440 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C2777106319 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C2779304628 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C2779530757 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C2780385302 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C36289849 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C39549134 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C41008148 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C48103436 @default.
• W2085752955 hasConceptScore W2085752955C71924100 @default.
• W2085752955 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2085752955 hasLocation W20857529551 @default.
• W2085752955 hasLocation W20857529552 @default.
• W2085752955 hasLocation W20857529553 @default.
• W2085752955 hasLocation W20857529554 @default.
• W2085752955 hasOpenAccess W2085752955 @default.
• W2085752955 hasPrimaryLocation W20857529551 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W1996361420 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2009610549 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2068167498 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2071165958 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2087351383 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2097712861 @default.
• W2085752955 hasRelatedWork W2748952813 @default.

• next