Public-academic partnerships: tools for mental health agencies to evaluate research protocols.
Public-academic partnerships: tools for mental health agencies to evaluate research protocols.
复制标题
公共学术伙伴关系：心理健康机构评估研究方案的工具。
DOI：
10.1176/ps.2010.61.5.446
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Velligan,DawnI
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Miller,AlexanderL;Dassori,Albana;Lopez,Linda;Castillo,DesireeA;Gonzalez,JodiM;Boone,Charles;Milam,Camis;Bond,GaryR;Velligan,DawnI
Charles Boone，MA Camis Milam，MD加里R.邦德博士道恩岛Velligan博士虽然研究机构需要准确评估研究方案的潜在风险和益处，以便就哪些方案是适当的以及参与这些方案的程度做出明智的决定。这些是复杂的判断，包括考虑机构审查委员会（IRB）未评估的问题。例如，IRB的任务不是评估研究方案如何影响重要功能，如计费，护理的连续性和护理的整合。然而，研究协议可能会影响这些和其他功能相当显着。IRB系统不足以应用于社区研究的概念已经在对109个社区团体和社区机构伙伴关系的调查中得到了解决，这些团体和社区机构伙伴关系已经建立了自己的审查过程，尽管调查的重点是伦理问题，而不是社区机构问题（1）。建立额外的独立审查程序的最常见原因是确保社区直接受益于研究（85%），确保社区参与（75%），保护社区免受可能的风险（68%），以及响应越来越多的研究人员请求支持或参与他们的研究（41%）。
Charles Boone, MA Camis Milam, MD Gary R. Bond, Ph. D. Dawn I. Velligan, Ph. D. community, but agencies need to accurately assess potential risks and benefits of research protocols to make informed decisions about which protocols are appropriate and what level of involvement to have with them. These are complex judgments that include consideration of questions not assessed by institutional review boards (IRBs). For example, IRBs are not tasked with assessing how research protocols may affect vital functions, such as billing, continuity of care, and integration of care. Yet research protocols may affect these and other functions quite dramatically. The concept that the IRB system is insufficient when applied to community-based research has been addressed in a survey of 109 community groups and community-institutional partnerships that have set up their own review process, although the focus of the survey was on ethical issues, not community agency issues (1). The most common reasons given for establishing an additional, separate review process were to ensure that the community directly benefits from the research (85%), to ensure that the community is engaged (75%), to protect the community from possible risks (68%), and to respond to a growing number of researcher requests to support or participate in their research (41%).
了解基于社区的研究伦理审查流程：一项国家研究。
影响因子：
12.7
作者：
Nancy Shore;R. Brazauskas;Elaine M Drew;Kristine A. Wong;Lisa Moy;Andrea Corage Baden;K. Cyr;Jocelyn Ulevicus;Sarena D. Seifer
通讯作者：
Sarena D. Seifer