2015
DOI: 10.1186/s12910-015-0020-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

IRB practices and policies regarding the secondary research use of biospecimens

Abstract: BackgroundAs sharing and secondary research use of biospecimens increases, IRBs and researchers face the challenge of protecting and respecting donors without comprehensive regulations addressing the human subject protection issues posed by biobanking. Variation in IRB biobanking policies about these issues has not been well documented.MethodsThis paper reports on data from a survey of IRB Administrative Directors from 60 institutions affiliated with the Clinical and Translation Science Awards (CTSAs) about th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
18
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
2
18
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, adapting to new modalities of research is a challenging endeavour for IRB members everywhere. We were able to link how information on secondary use, sharing of material and data, and recontacting participants is conveyed in earlier analysis on a sample of Canadian IRB documents, with the opinion of a group of Canadian IRB members and with results published elsewhere on the same subjects among the public and scientists [11][12][13]. The latter confirms the relevance on the topics and information independently of type and number of participants, and their geographical location.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…However, adapting to new modalities of research is a challenging endeavour for IRB members everywhere. We were able to link how information on secondary use, sharing of material and data, and recontacting participants is conveyed in earlier analysis on a sample of Canadian IRB documents, with the opinion of a group of Canadian IRB members and with results published elsewhere on the same subjects among the public and scientists [11][12][13]. The latter confirms the relevance on the topics and information independently of type and number of participants, and their geographical location.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 60%
“…However, it is not clear to the participants of our survey how these explanationsand thus the options for secondary use -would impact the availability of data necessary for collaborative genetic studies. Results from a survey among IRB administrators conducted by Goldberg et al explain that when it comes to secondary use in genetic research, IRBs are not consistent in their "protocol review, risk assessment, and data sharing, especially when specimens from biobanks are not anonymized" [11]. The majority of respondents to questions on the matter of data sharing are in favour of providing options for this endeavour.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Likewise, all institutions performing research of any type involving human subjects are required to have an Institutional Review Board (IRB)-approved protocol, the key component differentiating the latter from the former being the informed consent process, which attempts to assure subjects’ right to choose participation in a given study on the basis of the risks and benefits as presented by the researchers (Kane & Gallo, 2017, Goldenberg et al, 2015). Note that while IACUC and IRB are guidelines used within the United States, similar ethical committee guidelines are followed by much of the international community (Ghooi, 2014, Grady, 2015, Gettayacamin & Retnam, 2017, Newcomer & McGlone, 2015).…”
Section: Practice Guidelinesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Hesitation among prospective donors to consent to future use of their leftover biosamples raises issues on the type of consent forms researchers should develop. Whereas a research-specific consent process limits the use of biospecimens for very specific and pre-defined research purposes, a general-purpose consent process allows for a broader array of research purposes and the potential for future collaborative research [ 5 , 32 ]. In addition to these two types there are also tiered consents which allow the donor to consent to a menu of potential future uses of their samples, and the option re-contact to request future permissions [ 35 ].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%