Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

Are we asking the right questions? A review of Canadian REB practices in relation to community-based participatory research.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature142686
Source
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Jun;5(2):35-46
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-2010
Author
Adrian Guta
Michael G Wilson
Sarah Flicker
Robb Travers
Catherine Mason
Gloria Wenyeve
Patricia O'Campo
Author Affiliation
University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. adrian.guta@utoronto.ca
Source
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Jun;5(2):35-46
Date
Jun-2010
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Benchmarking
Canada
Community-Based Participatory Research - ethics
Cross-Sectional Studies
Ethics Committees, Research
Humans
Linear Models
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.
PubMed ID
20569148 View in PubMed
Less detail

Community-based research in AIDS-service organizations: what helps and what doesn't?

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature153660
Source
AIDS Care. 2009 Jan;21(1):94-102
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jan-2009
Author
Sarah Flicker
Michael Wilson
Robb Travers
Tarik Bereket
Colleen McKay
Anna van der Meulen
Adrian Guta
Shelley Cleverly
Sean B Rourke
Author Affiliation
Faculty of Environmental Sciences, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. flicker@yorku.ca
Source
AIDS Care. 2009 Jan;21(1):94-102
Date
Jan-2009
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome - prevention & control
Biomedical research
Community Health Services - organization & administration
Health Planning Organizations - organization & administration
Humans
Ontario
Questionnaires
Abstract
Community-based research (CBR) approaches have become commonplace in many North American HIV communities. In many large urban centers, AIDS-service organizations (ASOs) have become active research hubs, advocating for research dollars in community settings. While ASOs have historically integrated local knowledge into their prevention, care and advocacy initiatives, many are now initiating or collaborating in research which addresses emerging issues encountered in practice with clients.
To investigate barriers and facilitating factors for ASO engagement in CBR.
We conducted a survey (n=39) and one-on-one semi-structured telephone interviews (n=25) with executive directors and CBR coordinators from ASOs in Ontario, Canada. The survey queried four major areas of interest (organizational demographics, ASO CBR activities, potential barriers and facilitators for CBR engagement, and what roles stakeholders play in CBR initiatives). The interviews focused on exploring these issues in greater depth as well as understanding barriers and facilitating factors to people living with HIV/AIDS engaging in CBR.
ASOs in Ontario are moderately supportive of CBR in their organizations. However, our survey and one-on-one interviews indicate that funding and organizational resources are both important barriers and facilitators to ASO involvement in CBR projects. Attaining access to research ethics boards and concerns that CBR results will not be acted upon also emerged as barriers to CBR, particularly once funds and organizational resources have been attained. Initiatives designed to enhance the skills of research team members emerged as an another important facilitator.
Increasing emphasis from program funders on more rigorous evaluation and accountability, coupled with pull from increasingly empowered communities demanding much more active roles in setting research agendas, means that CBR is likely here to stay. Attending to barriers and facilitators will help with enhanced ASO engagement in CBR.
PubMed ID
19085225 View in PubMed
Less detail