Institutional Review Board Preparedness for Disaster Research: a Practical Approach

Abstract

Purpose of Review Disasters are becoming more common and challenge national and global resiliency and response efforts. As a result, government agencies have increased interest in disaster research to understand their environmental impact and health-related consequences. With the research field greatly expanding, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are being asked to review research protocols aimed at assessing health risks, exposures, and outcomes from disaster survivors. Few IRBs have experience reviewing disaster research protocols. This article describes approaches for IRB preparedness in reviewing disaster research. Recent Findings From a human research protections perspective, primary attention has focused on vulnerability of individuals and/or populations affected by a disaster who may serve as research participants [3, 4]. From our review of the current literature, there is a lack of best practices and/or guidance for IRBs in the review of disaster research protocols. Summary The growth of the disaster research field has brought more attention to potential ethical concerns of disaster research studies. Disaster survivors, responders, and those that assist in cleanup and remedial efforts may be left with significant unmet needs and long-term physical and emotional challenges as a result of their experiences. It is important for IRBs and investigators to collaboratively address how best to protect the welfare of individuals and communities affected by a disaster. A new approach is needed to systematically consider the various factors relevant to an assessment of human research protection issues following disasters.

Impact of natural disasters on student enrollment in higher education programs: A systematic review

“… Form alliances with other organizations to offer students to other learning opportunities. [ 56 ] [ 23 , 57 ] …”

Returning Individual Tap Water Testing Results to Research Study Participants after a Wildfire Disaster

“…Environmental exposure data have been a key focus of the NIEHS efforts, with the recognition that prospective cohort studies after disasters historically have suffered from exposure misclassification bias due to delays in collecting exposure information in the early phases of the disaster response [ 30 ]. The NIEHS DR2 program has drafted best practices for human subjects research [ 22 ], created a community of disaster researchers, and developed a repository of curated tools and resources for researchers [ 7 ]. Our experience shows that public health researchers should work in advance of disasters to develop and test multiple types of results return materials in multiple languages and with different literacy levels that can be used as templates for future events.…”

“…These systems emphasize the establishment of a Joint Information Center (JIC) to communicate official, timely, accurate, easy-to-understand, and consistent information from responding agencies to the public [ 21 ], but these communications are not designed to encompass individualized research results. Several researchers have outlined the keys steps and challenges for integrating research activities into responses to public health emergencies [ 8 , 22 ]. These frameworks acknowledge the importance of sharing research findings with the impacted community and even with study participants, but an approach to the challenge of quickly developing and distributing individual results return materials has not been proposed.…”

Considering Risks to Researchers and Staff in Low-Resource Settings during Public Health Crises: A Proposed Conceptual Model

“…Nonetheless, despite the seemingly increasing threat of human and/or natural disasters, there is limited data on the experiences and ethical dilemmas faced by researchers and research staff working in LRS after such a disaster. A recent article called for improved guidance given insufficient Institutional Review Boards algorithms to consider disaster-related research protection of communities, both as it pertains to participants and research teams [ 47 ]. Despite the lack of clear guidance, further understanding the implications of a disaster on a community—such as impacts on food, disease, water, carcinogens, or other human health factors—are needed.…”