An HIV Prevention Protocol Reviewed at 15 National Sites: How do Ethics Committees Protect Communities?

Abstract

To learn whether ethics committees reviewing community-based participatory research concentrate on the protection of communities, in addition to individual participants, data from 15 sites were analyzed. Eighty-two ethics committee concerns related to consent (35%), protocol procedures (49%), data collection (17%), and HIPAA (6%) were identified. Concerns generally involved individual level subject issues; only 17% were related to community issues. To improve community-level protections in research, the authors recommend that both ethics committee members and research staff receive education concerning protection and respect for communities, that a community member group be established to advise researchers throughout the planning and implementation of community-level studies and that local ethics committee boards include members with community-level experience.

Keywords

HIV community ethics committee adolescent

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Native American Child Health and Committee on Community Health Services. (2004). Ethical considerations in research with socially identifiable populations: Policy statement. Pediatrics, 113(1), 148–151.

Brugge

& Kole

(2003). A case study of community-based participatory research ethics: The healthy public housing initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9, 485–501.

Christians

C. G.

(2000). Ethics and politics in qualitative research. In Denzin

N. K.

& Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 133–155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45 Public Welfare Part 46 Protection of Human Subjects Subpart D. Washington, DC: Author.

Duggan

Jarvis

Derauf

Aligne

, & Kaczorowski

(2005). The essential role of research in community pediatrics. Pediatrics, 115(4), 1195–1201.

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

, & Grady

(2000). What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283(20), 2701–2711.

Fawcett

S. B.

(1991). Some values guiding community research and action. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24(4), 621–636.

Food and Drug Administration. (1979). Reprint of The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects in Research. Washington, DC: Author.

Institute of Medicine Committee on Assuring the Health of the Public in the 21st Century. (2002). The Future of the Public's Health in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

10.

Israel

B. A.

Schulz

A. J.

Parker

E. A.

Becker

A. B.

Allen

A. J.

, & Guzman

J. R.

(2002). Critical issues in developing and following community-based participatory research principles. In Minkler

& Wallerstein

(Eds.), Community-Based Participatory Research for Health (pp. 53–75). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

11.

Khanlou

& Peter

(2005). Participatory action research: Considerations for ethical review. Social Science and Medicine, 60(10), 2333–2340.

12.

Linnan

L. A.

Ferguson

Y. O.

Wasilewski

Lee

A. M.

Yang

Solomon

, & Katz

(2005). Using community-based participatory research methods to reach women with health messages: Results from the North Carolina BEAUTY and health pilot projects. Health Promotion and Practice, 6(2), 164–173.

13.

Marshall

P. A.

& Rotimi

(2001). Ethical challenges in community-based research. The American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 322(5), 241–245.

14.

Minkler

(2004). Ethical challenges for the “outside” researcher in community-based participatory research. Health Education & Behavior, 31(6), 684–697.

15.

Minkler

Fadem

Perry

Blum

Moore

, & Rogers

(2002). Ethical dilemmas in participatory action research: A case study from the disability community. Health Education & Behavior, 29(1), 13–28.

16.

National Commission for Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research (1978). The Belmont Report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research (DHEW Publication No. (OS) 78-0012). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. (See also: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/belmont.html.).

17.

Oakes

J. M.

(2002). Risks and wrongs in social science research: An evaluator's guide to the IRB. Evaluation Review, 26(5), 443–479.

18.

Olshansky

Sacco

Braxter

Dodge

Hughes

Ondeck

Stubbs

M. L.

, & Upvall

M. J.

(2005). Participatory action research to understand and reduce health disparities. Nursing Outlook, 53(3), 121–126.

19.

Quinn

S. C.

(2004). Protecting human subjects: The role of community advisory boards. American Journal of Public Health, 94(6), 918–922.

20.

Sixsmith

Boneham

, & Goldring

J. E.

(2003). Accessing the community: Gaining insider perspectives from the outside. Qualitative Health Research, 13(4), 578–589.

21.

Trickett

E. J.

(1998). Toward a framework for defining and resolving ethical issues in the protection of communities involved in primary prevention projects. Ethics and Behavior, 8(4), 321–337.

22.

Trickett

E. J.

& Levin

G. B.

(1990). Paradigms for prevention: Providing a context for confronting ethical issues. In Levin

Trickett

E. J.

, & Hess

R. E.

(Eds.), Ethical Implications of Primary Prevention (pp. 3–16). New York: The Hawthorne Press.

23.

Weijer

(1999). Protecting communities in research: Philosophical and pragmatic challenges. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics, 8, 501–513.

24.

Weijer

& Emanuel

E. J.

(2000). Protecting communities in biomedical research. Science, 289, 1142–1144.

25.

Ziff

Harper

Chutuape

Deeds

B. G.

Futterman

Francisco

V. T.

Muenz

, & Ellen

J. M.

for the Adolescent Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions. (2006). Laying the foundation for Connect to Protect®: A multi-site community mobilization intervention to reduce HIV/AIDS incidence and prevalence among urban youth. Journal of Urban Health, 83(3), 506–522.