How do Research Ethics Committee Members Respond to Hypothetical Studies with Children? Results from the MESSI Study

Hypothetical scenarios were used to assess the influence of the sensitivity of the study topic, payments, and study methods on research ethics committee (HREC) members' approval of social research studies involving children. A total of 183 Australian HREC members completed an online survey. The higher the perceived sensitivity of the study topic, the less likely the study would be approved by an HREC member. HREC members were most likely to approve each of the hypothetical studies if no payment was offered. Payment was the most common reason for not approving the low risk studies, while risks were the most common reasons for not approving the more sensitive studies. Face-to-face interviews conducted at home with children elicited substantially higher rates of approval from HREC members with more sensitive study topics. Both HRECs and researchers may benefit from additional guidance on managing risks and payments for children and young people in research.

Informed Consent for Online Research-Is Anybody Reading?: Assessing Comprehension and Individual Differences in Readings of Digital Consent Forms

Informed consent is an important part of the research process; however, some participants either do not read or skim the consent form. When participants do not read or comprehend informed consent, then they may not understand the potential benefits, risks, or details of the study before participating. This study used previous research to develop experimentally manipulated online consent forms utilizing various presentations of the consent form and interactive elements. Participants (n = 576) were randomly exposed to one of six form variations. Results found that the highly interactive condition was significantly better for comprehension than any of the other conditions. The highly interactive condition also performed better for readability, though not significantly. Further research should explore the effects of interactive elements to combat habituation and to engage participants with the parts of the consent form unique to the study.

Trolley Dilemmas Fail to Predict Ethical Judgment in a Hypothetical Vaccination Context

We investigated whether the responses of 68 ethics committee members and staff to trolley dilemmas could predict their responses to research ethics problems concerning vaccine trials. Trolley dilemmas deal with the issue of sacrificing some for the benefit of many, which is also a core issue in the vaccination trial dilemmas. The subjects' responses to trolley dilemmas showed no statistically significant correlation with their responses to our vaccination trial dilemmas. We concluded that, if there is a component of transferable intuition between the contexts, it must be small and dominated by other factors. Furthermore, the willingness to sacrifice some for many was larger in the trolley context, despite a more favorable risk/reward ratio and the voluntary participation of the subjects at risk in the vaccination situations. We conclude that one's general willingness to trade lives in the trolley context may be an artifact that is due to its unrealistic setting.

Commentary on "Regulatory Support Improves Subsequent IRB/REC Approval Rates in Studies Initially Deemed Not Ready for Review: A CTSA Institution's Experience"

In response to researcher concerns a number of initiatives have been developed to support individual researchers seeking ethics review and approval. In this issue, Sonne et al. (2017) outline an example of an intervention to support researchers, which they refer to as a Regulatory Knowledge Support (RKS) service. While the study points to potential benefits, other studies have not had the desired impact on key performance measures. There is a need to develop a community of practice and expand the burgeoning evidence base regarding what interventions work, for whom, and under what circumstances. Advancing the research agenda requires: the development of theoretical models for intervention design and evaluation; developing consensus on key data for collection and measures of effectiveness; conducting evaluations using the strongest possible study designs, and; publishing the findings of evaluations.

What Can IRBs Learn From CABs? A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Recruitment and Training of Nonscientist Members on Research Review Boards

Governments, funders, and institutional policies increasingly encourage and even mandate the involvement of nonscientists in the ethical review of research, most famously in institutional review boards (IRBs), but also on community advisory boards (CABs) and other committees that contribute to research governance. In spite of these requirements, few have examined how different factors such as recruitment strategies, training, and different qualifications shape the contributions of nonscientists to the research enterprise. This pilot study begins to fill in this lacuna by interviewing nonscientist members of IRBs and community members of CABs. Results suggest patterned differences in demographics, recruitment strategies, training, and perceived qualifications between community members on these two types of boards with potential implications for how we perceive the scope of contributions that nonscientists can provide to the ethical review of research and the strategic ways these contributions can be elicited.

A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India

Assessing the resources and functioning of research ethics committees (RECs) in low-resource settings poses many challenges. We conducted a case study of two medical college RECs (A and B) in Western India utilizing the Research Ethics Committee Quality Assurance Self-Assessment Tool (RECQASAT) as well as in-depth interviews with representative members to evaluate REC effectiveness. REC A and B obtained 62% and 67% of allowable points on the RECQASAT. These scores together with findings from the in-depth interviews suggest the need for significant improvement in REC effectiveness particularly in the areas of membership and educational training, organizational aspects, recording minutes, communicating decisions, and REC resources. Developing evidence-based best practices and strengthening infrastructure are essential to enhancing REC efficacy in low-resource countries.