Show simple item record

Piloting a Nationally Disseminated, Interactive Human Subjects Protection Program for Community Partners: Unexpected Lessons Learned from the Field

dc.contributor.authorSolomon, Stephanieen_US
dc.contributor.authorBullock, Sheritaen_US
dc.contributor.authorCalhoun, Karenen_US
dc.contributor.authorCrosby, Lorien_US
dc.contributor.authorEakin, Brendaen_US
dc.contributor.authorFranco, Zenoen_US
dc.contributor.authorHardwick, Emilyen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeinberger‐jabari, Andreaen_US
dc.contributor.authorNewton, Gailen_US
dc.contributor.authorOdell, Jereen_US
dc.contributor.authorPaberzs, Adamen_US
dc.contributor.authorSpellecy, Ryanen_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-23T15:59:01Z
dc.date.available2015-06-01T15:48:45Zen_US
dc.date.issued2014-04en_US
dc.identifier.citationSolomon, Stephanie; Bullock, Sherita; Calhoun, Karen; Crosby, Lori; Eakin, Brenda; Franco, Zeno; Hardwick, Emily; Leinberger‐jabari, Andrea ; Newton, Gail; Odell, Jere; Paberzs, Adam; Spellecy, Ryan (2014). "Piloting a Nationally Disseminated, Interactive Human Subjects Protection Program for Community Partners: Unexpected Lessons Learned from the Field." Clinical and Translational Science 7(2): 172-176.en_US
dc.identifier.issn1752-8054en_US
dc.identifier.issn1752-8062en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/106833
dc.description.abstractFunders, institutions, and research organizations are increasingly recognizing the need for human subjects protections training programs for those engaged in academic research. Current programs tend to be online and directed toward an audience of academic researchers. Research teams now include many nonacademic members, such as community partners, who are less likely to respond to either the method or the content of current online trainings. A team at the CTSA‐supported Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research at the University of Michigan developed a pilot human subjects protection training program for community partners that is both locally implemented and adaptable to local contexts, yet nationally consistent and deliverable from a central administrative source. Here, the developers of the program and the collaborators who participated in the pilot across the United States describe 10 important lessons learned that align with four major themes: The distribution of the program, the implementation of the program, the involvement of community engagement in the program, and finally lessons regarding the content of the program. These lessons are relevant to anyone who anticipates developing or improving a training program that is developed in a central location and intended for local implementation.en_US
dc.publisherWiley Periodicals, Inc.en_US
dc.publisherRadcliffe Puben_US
dc.subject.otherIRBen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunity Partnersen_US
dc.subject.otherEthics Trainingen_US
dc.subject.otherResearch Ethicsen_US
dc.subject.otherCommunity‐Engaged Researchen_US
dc.titlePiloting a Nationally Disseminated, Interactive Human Subjects Protection Program for Community Partners: Unexpected Lessons Learned from the Fielden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.rights.robotsIndexNoFollowen_US
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevelPharmacy and Pharmacologyen_US
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelHealth Sciencesen_US
dc.description.peerreviewedPeer Revieweden_US
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/106833/1/cts12155.pdf
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/cts.12155en_US
dc.identifier.sourceClinical and Translational Scienceen_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFlicker S, Travers R, Guta A, McDonald S, Meagher A. Ethical dilemmas in community‐based participatory research: recommendations for institutional review boards. J Urban Health. 2007; 84 ( 4 ): 478 – 493.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBrown P, Morello‐Frosch R, Brody JG, Altman RG, Rudel RA, Senier L, Pérez C. IRB challenges in multi‐partner community‐based participatory research. The American Sociological Association Annual Meeting; Sheraton Boston, 2008.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceFamily Health International. Research ethics training curriculum for community representatives. Available at: http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Training/trainmat/ethicscurr/retccr.htm. Accessed March 31, 2010.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceNebeker CN. TRES: training in research ethics and standards. 2003.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceBraunschweiger P, Goodman KW. The CITI program: an international online resource for education in human subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med. 2007; 82 ( 9 ): 861 – 864.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceChristakis NA. Ethics are local: engaging cross‐cultural variation in the ethics for clinical research. Soc Sci Med. 1992; 35: 1079 – 1079.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceAnderson EE, Solomon S, Heitman E, DuBois JM, Fisher CB, Kost RG, Lawless ME, Ramsey C, Jones B, Ammerman A, et al. Research ethics education for community‐engaged research: a review and research agenda. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2012; 7 ( 2 ): 3 – 19.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceKurtz SM, Silverman DJ, Draper J, van Dalen J, Platt FW. Teaching and Learning Communication Skills in Medicine. Oxford: Radcliffe Pub.; 2005. Available at: http://www.lavoisier.fr/livre/notice.asp?id=RSAWLLAA3L2OWT. Accessed September 12, 2013.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceMalone RE, Yerger VB, McGruder C, Froelicher E. “It's Like Tuskegee in Reverse”: a case study of ethical tensions in Institutional Review Board Review of community‐based participatory research. Am J Public Health. 2006; 96 ( 11 ): 1914 – 1919. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.082172.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceIsrael BA, Schulz AJ, Parker EA, Becker AB. Review of community‐based research: assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annu Rev Public Health. 1998; 19 ( 1 ): 173 – 202.en_US
dc.identifier.citedreferenceSolomon S, Piechowski PJ. Developing community partner training: regulations and relationships. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011; 6 ( 2 ): 23 – 30.en_US
dc.owningcollnameInterdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.