Sponsors, researchers and Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are often wary about payments in research participation, citing concerns about coercion and undue influence, whether real or perceived, and have avoided payments that are “too high.” New research on how people make decisions about research participation, and new approaches to this question, bring a new perspective; are payments to participants actually too low? This paper explores this question, and whether we should, in fact, worry much less about restricting compensation for research participants.Enter content here
The IRB at Inova Health System of Falls Church, VA, began working with a central IRB 15 years ago. Since th...
New Blog: "Ask the IRB Experts"Visit Blog
Other content in this Stream
In 2018 WIRB approved 100% of the single-patient EA requests that were submitted for review.
The IRB at Inova Health System of Falls Church, VA, began working with a central IRB 15 years ago. Since then, the IRB developed a well-organized process for its partnerships with independent IRBs.
On January 21, 2019, most federally funded research will need to follow the 2018 Requirements of the Common Rule. This post talks through the original and revised rules, and how they may apply to you.
Daniel Kavanagh, PhD, responds to recent news of germline editing of human embryos in China.
The impact of participant payments on clinical trial recruitment.
Studies show clinical trial participants want to know what was learned from their involvement. Many sponsors are implementing plans to deliver plain language summaries to trial participants.
Often, the only way for potential research subjects to learn about a clinical trial is through recruitment materials. But what materials must you submit to the IRB for review?
Dissatisfied with its electronic IRB research management solution, OhioHealth Research & Innovation Institute searched for a solution to improve compliance, efficiency, customer service, and cost.