Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:59:44.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Health Practice vs Research: Implications for Preparedness and Disaster Research Review by State Health Department IRBs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

David Perlman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under the current US Department of Health and Human Services regulatory and ethical system for research involving human subjects, research is defined in terms of several key concepts: intent, systematic investigation, and generalizability. If an investigator engages in a systematic investigation designed or intended to contribute to generalizable knowledge, then he or she is engaged in research. If that research involves living individuals and the investigator will either interact or intervene with people or obtain their identifiable personal information, then the research must be prospectively reviewed by an institutional review board (IRB), a federally mandated committee that ensures the ethical and regulatory appropriateness of proposed research. In public health institutions, and especially at state departments of health, this definition of research may prove vexing for determining when particular public health activities must be reviewed by IRBs. This article outlines several reasons for such vexation and 2 key responses from major public health stakeholders. In the current climate of public health preparedness initiatives at state health departments for disasters and bioterrorism, how research is defined vis-à-vis public health interventions may add even more confusion to preparedness initiatives and pose difficulties in determining when IRB review and the added protections it affords are appropriate. This article suggests several practical ways to avoid confusion and attempts to strike a balance between the need for expeditious approvals of research-based responses to public health disasters and to ensure proper protections for human subjects at state health departments. It is hoped that these suggestions can assist not only state health departments but also academically based researchers who either collaborate with those departments or whose research will need to be reviewed by their IRBs. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:185–191)

Keywords

institutional review boardspublic health preparednesspublic health practice
Type
Special Focus
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 2 , Issue 3 , October 2008 , pp. 185 - 191
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Emanuel, EJ, Wendler, D, Grady, C.What makes clinical research ethical? JAMA. 2000;283:2701–2711.Google Scholar
2. Office for Human Research Protections Institutional Review Board Registry. http://ohrp.cit.nih.gov/search/asearch.asp#ASUR. Accessed February 11, 2008.Google Scholar
3. 45 C.F.R. 46.116(d) (1–4) (2007).Google Scholar
4. Tips on Informed Consent. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/ictips.htm. Accessed April 30, 2008. OHRP Informed Consent Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/informconsfaq.html. Accessed April 30, 2008.Google Scholar
5. 45 C.F.R. 46.111, 116, 117 (2007).Google Scholar
6.Childress, JF, Faden, RR, Gaare, RD, et alPublic health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics. 2002;30:170–178.Google Scholar
7.Emanuel, EJ, Crouch, RA, Arras, JD, et alEthical and Regulatory Aspects of Clinical Research. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2003.Google Scholar
8. 45 C.F.R. 46 Subparts A–D (2007).Google Scholar
9. OHRP Guidance on Engagement in Research. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/assurance/engage.htm. Accessed April 30, 2008.Google Scholar
10. 45 C.F.R. 46.102 (2007).Google Scholar
11. OHRP Guidance and Decision Chart on Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/decisioncharts.htm#c10. Accessed April 30, 2008.Google Scholar
12. 45 C.F.R. 46.116 (2007).Google Scholar
13.Guidelines for Defining Public Health Research and Public Health Non-Research. Atlanta: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 1999.Google Scholar
14. Hodge JG, Gostin LO. Public Health Practice vs Research: A Report for Public Health Practitioners Including Cases and Guidance for Making Decisions. Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists Web site. http://www.cste.org/pdffiles/newpdffiles/CSTEPHResRptHodgeFinal.5.24.04.pdf. Accessed January 27, 2007.Google Scholar
15. 45 C.F.R. 46.102(d) (2007).Google Scholar
16. The Belmont Report. 1979. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed May 1, 2008.Google Scholar
17. Gawande A. A Lifesaving Checklist. New York Times Web site. December 30, 2007. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/30/opinion/30gawande.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin. Accessed February 12, 2008.Google Scholar
18. OHRP (Office of Human Research Protections) Statement Regarding The New York Times Op-Ed Entitled “A Lifesaving Checklist.” http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/news/recentnews.html#20080115. Accessed January 12, 2008.Google Scholar
19.Kilpatrick, DG.The ethics of disaster research: a special section. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17:361–362.Google Scholar
20.Collogan, LK, Tuma, F, Dolan-Sewell, R, et alEthical issues pertaining to research in the aftermath of disaster. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17:363–372.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21.Rosenstein, DL.Decision-making capacity and disaster research. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17:373–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
22.Newman, E, Kaloupek, DG.The risks and benefits of participating in trauma-focused studies. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17:383–394.Google Scholar
23.Levine, C.The concept of vulnerability in disaster research. J Trauma Stress. 2004;17:395–402.Google Scholar
24.Collogan, LK, Tuma, FK, Fleischman, AR.Research with victims of disaster: institutional review board considerations. IRB. 2004;26:9–11.Google Scholar
25.North, C, Pfefferbaum, B, Tucker, P.Ethical and methodological issues in academic mental health research in populations affected by disasters: the Oklahoma City experience relevant to September 11, 2001. CNS Spectr. 2002;7:580–584.Google Scholar
26.Fleischman, AR, Collogan, L, Tuma, F. Ethical issues in disaster research. In: Norris FH, Galea S, Friedman MJ, et al. Methods for Disaster Mental Health Research. New York: Guilford; 2006.Google Scholar
27.Drosten, C, Günther, S, Preiser, W, et alIdentification of a novel coronavirus in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1967–1976.Google Scholar
28.Poutanen, SM, Low, DE, Henry, B, et alIdentification of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Canada. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1995–2005.Google Scholar
29.Tsang, KW, Ho, PL, Ooi, GC, et alA cluster of cases of severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:1977–1985.Google Scholar
30.Beecher, HK.Ethics and clinical research. N Engl J Med. 1966;274:1360.Google Scholar
31. Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals: Writing and Editing for Biomedical Publication. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Web site. 2006. http://www.icmje.org. Accessed January 28, 2007.Google Scholar
32. Whitely R. We Need ‘Fast Track’ Research. American Enterprise Institute–Brookings Joint Center Policy Matters Web site. 2003. http://www.aei-brookings.org/policy/page.php?id=142&PHPSESSID=b630e29ee2c638b4b110d25a5e9058be. Accessed January 27, 2007.Google Scholar
33. 21 C.F.R. 50.24 (2008).Google Scholar
34. 61 Federal Register 51531–51533 (1996) (codified at 45 C.F.R.§46).Google Scholar
35.Brody, H.Transparency: informed consent in primary care. Hastings Cent Rep. 1989;19:5–9.Google Scholar
36.Emanuel, EJ, Wood, A, Fleischman, A, et alOversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141:282–291.Google Scholar