首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>BMC Medical Ethics >Journalists district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle
【2h】

Journalists district attorneys and researchers: why IRBs should get in the middle

机译:记者地方检察官和研究人员:为何内部评级法应居于中间

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BackgroundFederal regulations in the United States have shaped Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to focus on protecting individual human subjects. Health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions such as hospitals or clinics do not have individual human subjects. Since U.S. federal regulations are silent on what type of review, if any, these studies require, different IRBs may approach similar studies differently, resulting in undesirable variation in the review of studies focusing on healthcare institutions. Further, although these studies do not focus on individual human subjects, they may pose risks to participating institutions, as well as individuals who work at those institutions, if identifying information becomes public.
机译:背景技术美国的联邦法规已建立了机构审查委员会(IRB),以专注于保护个体受试者。专注于医疗机构(如医院或诊所)的卫生服务研究没有个人受试者。由于美国联邦法规对这些研究要求什么类型的审查(如果有的话)保持沉默,因此不同的IRB可能会以不同的方式处理类似的研究,从而导致对以医疗机构为重点的研究的审查出现不良的变化。此外,尽管这些研究不针对单个人类受试者,但如果识别信息公开,它们可能会对参与机构以及在这些机构工作的个人构成风险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号