Are We Asking the Right Questions? A Review of Canadian REB Practices in Relation to Community-Based Participatory Research

Abstract

Access barriers to effective ethics review continue to be a significant challenge for researchers and community-based organizations undertaking community-based participatory research (CBPR). This article reports on findings from a content analysis of select (Behavioural, Biomedical, Social Sciences, Humanities) research ethics boards (REBs) in the Canadian research context (n = 86). Existing ethics review documentation was evaluated using 30 CBPR related criteria for their sensitivity to relevant approaches, processes, and outcomes. A linear regression was conducted to determine whether specific organizational characteristics have an impact on the CBPR sensitivity: (1) region of Canada, (2) type of institution (university or a healthcare organization), (3) primary institutional language (English or French) and (4) national ranking with respect to research intensiveness. While only research intensiveness proved statistically significant (p = .001), we recognize REB protocol forms may not actually reflect how CBPR is reviewed. Despite using a single guiding ethical framework, REBs across Canada employ a variety of techniques to review research studies. We report on these differences and varying levels of sensitivity to CBPR. Finally, we highlight best practices and make recommendations for integrating CBPR principles into existing ethics review.

Keywords

community-based participatory research content analysis research ethics ethics review Canada review forms ethics guidelines

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Benatar

S. R.

(2002). Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Social Science & Medicine, 54(7), 1131–1141.

Boser

(2007). Power, ethics, and the IRB: Dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qualitative Inquiry, 13(8), 1060–1074.

Bradley

(2007). Silenced for their own protection: How the IRB marginalizes those it feigns to protect. ACME, 6(3), 339–349.

Brugge

& Kole

(2003). A case study of community-based participatory research ethics: The healthy public housing initiative. Science and Engineering Ethics, 9(4), 485–501.

Carleton University Research Ethics Committee. (2004). General Application to the Carleton University Research Ethics Committee. Ottawa, Canada: Carleton University.

Christakis

N. A.

(1992). Ethics are local: Engaging cross-cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Social Science & Medicine, 35(9), 1079–1091.

Community-Campus Partnerships for Health. (2009). Community-based Participatory Research. Retrieved October 4, 2009 from http://depts.washington.edu/ccph/commbas.html.

Couzos

Lea

Murray

, & Culbong

(2005). “We are not just participants—We are in charge”: The NACCHO ear trial and the process for Aboriginal community-controlled health research. Ethnicity & Health, 10(2), 91–111.

Dalhousie University Office of Research Ethics Administration. (2007). Guidance for Submitting an Application for Research Ethics Review. Halifax, Canada: Dalhousie University.

10.

Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm.

11.

Dickert

& Sugarman

(2005). Ethical goals of community consultation in research. American Journal of Public Health, 95(7), 1123–1127.

12.

Downie

& Cottrell

(2001). Community-based research ethics review: Reflections on experience and recommendations for action. Health Law Review, 10(1), 8–17.

13.

Egleston

B. L.

Dunbrack

R. L.

Jr. , & Hall

M. J.

(2010). Clinical trials that explicitly exclude gay and lesbian patients. New England Journal of Medicine, 362(11), 1054–1055.

14.

Eikeland

(2006). Condescending ethics and action research. Action Research, 4(1), 37–47.

15.

Executive Heads of G13 Universities. (2008). Submission to the Competition Policy Review Panel on Sharpening Canada's Competitive Edge. Available online at http://competition-bureau.gc.ca/eic/site/cb-bc.nsf/eng/02555.html.

16.

Firehock

(2003). Protocol and Guidelines for Ethical and Effective Research of Community Based Collaborative Processes. Tucson, AZ: Community Based Collaboratives Research Consortium. Available online at http://www.cbcrc.org/CBCresearch_Protocols.pdf.

17.

Flicker

(2005). Critical Issues in Community Based Participatory Research. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.

18.

Flicker

& Guta

(2008). Ethical approaches to adolescent participation in sexual health research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 42, 3–10.

19.

Flicker

Guta

Larkin

Flynn

Fridkin

Travers

Pole

J. D.

, & Layne

(2010). Survey design from the ground up: Collaboratively creating the Toronto teen survey. Health Promotion Practice, 11(1), 112–122.

20.

Flicker

Travers

Guta

McDonald

, & Meagher

(2007). Ethical dilemmas in community-based participatory research: Recommendations for institutional review boards. Journal of Urban Health, 84(4), 478–493.

21.

Flicker

Wilson

Travers

Bereket

McKay

van der Meulen

Guta

Cleverly

, & Rourke

S. B.

(2009). Community-based research in AIDS service organizations: What helps and what doesn't? AIDS Care, 21(1), 94–102.

22.

Fox

N. J.

(2003). Practice-based evidence: Towards collaborative and transgressive research. Sociology, 37(1), 81–102.

23.

Green

L. W.

George

M. A.

Daniel

Frankish

C. J.

Herbert

C. P.

Bowie

W. R.

, & O'Neill

(1995). Study of Participatory Research in Health Promotion (pp. 43–50). Ottawa, Canada: Royal Society of Canada.

24.

Greene

Ahluwalia

Watson

Tucker

Rourke

S. B.

Koornstra

Sobota

Monette

, & Byers

(2009). Between skepticism and empowerment: The experiences of peer research assistants in HIV/AIDS, housing and homelessness community-based research. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 12(4), 361–373.

25.

Grossman

Agarwal

Biggs

Brenneman

Gahagan

Jarvis

J. N.

, & Margolis

H. S.

(2004). Ethical considerations in research with socially identifiable population. Pediatrics, 113(1), 148–151.

26.

Guta

Roche

, & Flicker

(2008). Exploring the Use of Peer Researchers in Community-Based Participatory Research. Paper presented at the Social Work National Conference, Toronto, Canada.

27.

Haggerty

K. D.

(2004). Ethics creep: Governing social science research in the name of ethics. Qualitative Sociology, 27(4), 391–414.

28.

Hopkins

P. E.

(2007). Positionalities and knowledge: Negotiating ethics in practice. ACME, 6(3), 386–394. Interagency Advisory Panel on Research Ethics. (1998). Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, 1st ed. Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada. Retrieved November 15, 2005 from http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/tcps-eptc/.

29.

Israel

Schulz

Parker

, & Becker

(1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19(1), 173–194.

30.

Jewkes

& Murcott

(1998). Community representatives: Representing the “community”? Social Science and Medicine, 46(7), 843–858.

31.

Khanlou

& Peter

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

32.

Macaulay

A. C.

Delormier

McComber

A. M.

Cross

E. J.

Potvin

L. P.

Paradis

Kirby

R. L.

Saad-Haddad

, & Desrosiers

(1998). Participatory research with Native community of Kahawake creates innovative code of research ethics. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 89(2), 105–108.

33.

MacQueen

K. M.

McLellan

Metzger

D. S.

Kegeles

Strauss

R. P.

Scotti

Blanchard

, & Trotter

R. T.

II . (2001). What is community? An evidence-based definition for participatory public health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(12), 1929–1938.

34.

Malone

R. E.

Yerger

V. B.

McGruder

, & Froelicher

(2006). “It's like Tuskegee in reverse”: A case study of ethical tensions in institutional review board review of community-based participatory research. American Journal of Public Health, 96(11), 1914–1919.

35.

Marshall

& Rotimi

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

36.

McMaster Research Ethics Board. (2009). Faculty/Grad & Staff Research Ethics: Introduction. Retrieved October 5, 2009 from http://www.mcmaster.ca/ors/ethics/faculty_intro.htm.

37.

Minkler

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

38.

Minkler

(2005). Community-based research partnerships: Challenges and opportunities Journal of Urban Health, 82(Supp. 2), ii3–ii12.

39.

Murray

& Holmes

(Eds.). (2009). Critical Interventions in the Ethics of Healthcare: Challenging the Principle of Autonomy in Bioethics. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

40.

National Council on Ethics in Human Research. (2009). National Council on Ethics in Human Research (NCEHR) Welcome Page. Available online at http://www.ncehr-cnerh.org.

41.

Nixon

(2006). Critical public health ethics and Canada's role in global health. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 97(1), 32–34.

42.

Nixon

& Forman

(2008). Exploring synergies between human rights and public health ethics: A whole greater than the sum of its parts. BMC International Health and Human Rights, 8(2). doi:10.1186/1472-698X-8-2.

43.

Reid

& Brief

(2009). Confronting condescending ethics: How community-based research challenges traditional approaches to consent, confidentiality, and capacity. Journal of Academic Ethics, 7(1/2), 75–85.

44.

Rolfe

(2005). Colliding discourses: Deconstructing the process of seeking ethical approval for a participatory evaluation project. Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(2), 231–233.

45.

Ross

L. F.

Loup

Nelson

R. M.

Botkin

J. R.

Kost

Smith

G. R.

Jr. , & Gehlert

(2010a). The challenges of collaboration for academic and community partners in a research partnership: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 19–31.

46.

Ross

L. F.

Loup

Nelson

R. M.

Botkin

J. R.

Kost

Smith

G. R.

Jr. , & Gehlert

(2010b). Human subjects protections in community-engaged research: A research ethics framework. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 5–17.

47.

Ross

L. F.

Loup

Nelson

R. M.

Botkin

J. R.

Kost

Smith

G. R.

Jr. , & Gehlert

(2010c). Nine key functions for a human subjects protection program for community-engaged research: Points to consider. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(1), 33–47.

48.

Schnarch

(2005). Ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP) or self-determination applied to research: A critical analysis of contemporary first nations research and some options for first nations communities. Ottawa, Canada: First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health Organization.

49.

Schüklenk

(2000). Protecting the vulnerable: Testing times for clinical research ethics. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 969–977.

50.

Shore

(2007). Community-based participatory research and the ethics review process. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 2(1), 31–41.

51.

Shore

Wong

K. A.

Seifer

S. D.

Grignon

, & Gamble

V. N.

(2008). Introduction to special issue: Advancing the ethics of community-based participatory research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 1–4.

52.

Silka

Cleghorn

G. D.

Grullon

, & Tellez

(2008). Creating community-based participatory research in a diverse community: A case study. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3(2), 5–16.

53.

Simon

& Mosavel

(2010). Community members as recruiters of human subjects: Ethical considerations. American Journal of Bioethics, 10(3), 3–11.

54.

Trussler

Perchal

, & Barker

(2000). “Between what is said and what is done”: Cultural constructs and young gay men's HIV vulnerability. Psychology, Health, & Medicine, 5(3), 295–306.

55.

Udo

& Richard

(2000). International research ethics. Bioethics, 14(2), 158–172.

56.

University of Toronto Ethics Review Office. (2009). Instructions for ethics review protocol submission form (for faculty and supervised and supervised researchers). In Guidelines and Practices Manual for Research Involving Human Subjects (pp. 44–51). Toronto, Canada: Office of the Vice-President, University of Toronto.

57.

University of Victoria Human Research Ethics Office. (2008). Guidelines for Ethics in Dual-Role Research for Teachers and Other Practitioners. Available online at http://www.research.uvic.ca/forms/hrec/geidrr.pdf.

58.

Wallerstein

& Duran

(2006). Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promotion Practice, 7(3), 312–323.

59.

Walsh

C. A.

Hewson

Shier

, & Morales

(2008). Unraveling ethics: Reflections from a community-based participatory research project with youth. Qualitative Report, 13(3), 379–393.