Ethical Dilemmas in Community-Based Participatory Research: Recommendations for Institutional Review Boards
- 3.4k Downloads
National and international codes of research conduct have been established in most industrialized nations to ensure greater adherence to ethical research practices. Despite these safeguards, however, traditional research approaches often continue to stigmatize marginalized and vulnerable communities. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) has evolved as an effective new research paradigm that attempts to make research a more inclusive and democratic process by fostering the development of partnerships between communities and academics to address community-relevant research priorities. As such, it attempts to redress ethical concerns that have emerged out of more traditional paradigms. Nevertheless, new and emerging ethical dilemmas are commonly associated with CBPR and are rarely addressed in traditional ethical reviews. We conducted a content analysis of forms and guidelines commonly used by institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA and research ethics boards (REBs) in Canada. Our intent was to see if the forms used by boards reflected common CBPR experience. We drew our sample from affiliated members of the US-based Association of Schools of Public Health and from Canadian universities that offered graduate public health training. This convenience sample (n = 30) was garnered from programs where application forms were available online for download between July and August, 2004. Results show that ethical review forms and guidelines overwhelmingly operate within a biomedical framework that rarely takes into account common CBPR experience. They are primarily focused on the principle of assessing risk to individuals and not to communities and continue to perpetuate the notion that the domain of “knowledge production” is the sole right of academic researchers. Consequently, IRBs and REBs may be unintentionally placing communities at risk by continuing to use procedures inappropriate or unsuitable for CBPR. IRB/REB procedures require a new framework more suitable for CBPR, and we propose alternative questions and procedures that may be utilized when assessing the ethical appropriateness of CBPR.
KeywordsCommunity-based participatory research Ethical dilemmas Ethical issues in CBPR Research ethics Vulnerable communities
The authors thank the many community-based researchers who shared their problems and concerns with us. In addition, our gratitude goes to Meredith Minkler, Sarena Seifer, and the anonymous reviewers who gave us feedback to improve the manuscript. Finally, we are indebted to David Flicker for his editorial genius. This research was supported by the Wellesley Institute.
- 3.Jones J. Bad Blood: The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment. New York: Free Press; 1993.Google Scholar
- 4.Gamble V. Under the shadow of Tuskegee: African Americans and health care. Am J Public Health. 1999;87(11):1773–1778.Google Scholar
- 6.The Nuremburg Code. “Permissible Medical Experiments.” Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg October 1946 – April 1949. J Am Med Assoc. 1949;276(20):1691.Google Scholar
- 7.World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (last amended Oct 2000). World Medical Association; 1964. Available at: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm. Accessed on: 15 Nov 2005.
- 8.Office of the Secretary. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research; 1979. Available at: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.htm. Accessed on: 15 Nov 2005.
- 9.Tri-Council of Canada. Tri-Council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. Interagency Secretariat on Research Ethics on behalf of The Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; 1998. Available at: http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/pdf/TCPS%20October%202005_E.pdf. Accessed on: 15 Nov 2005.
- 11.Whitehead M. The ownership of research. In: Davies JK, Kelly MP, eds. Healthy Cities: Research and Practice. New York, NY: Routledge; 1993:83–89.Google Scholar
- 12.Schnarch B. Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP) or Self-determination Applied to Research. A Critical Analysis of Contemporary First Nations Research and some Options for First Nations Communities. Ottawa: First Nations Centre, National Aboriginal Health Organization; 2004.Google Scholar
- 15.Lewin K. Resolving Social Conflicts. New York: Harper & Row; 1948.Google Scholar
- 16.Argyris C, Putnam R, McLain Smith D. Action Science. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Inc; 1985.Google Scholar
- 17.Gaventa J. The powerful, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age. In: Park P, Brydon-Miller M, Hall B, Jackson T, eds. Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education; 1993:21–40.Google Scholar
- 18.Friere P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Seabury Press; 1970.Google Scholar
- 19.Fals-Borda O, Anishur Rahman M. Action and Knowledge Breaking the Monopoly with Participatory Action Research. New York: The Apex Press; 1991.Google Scholar
- 20.Whyte WF, et al. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park: SAGE; 1991.Google Scholar
- 23.Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. London: ITDG; 1997.Google Scholar
- 25.Viswanathan M, Ammerman A, Eng E, et al. Community-based Participatory Research: Assessing the Evidence. Summary, Evidence Report/Technology Assessment, No 99. AHRQ Publication 04-E022-1. Rockville: RTI-University of North Carolina Evidence Based Practice Center & Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2004.Google Scholar
- 27.Minkler M, Wallerstein N. Community-based Participatory Research for Health. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2003.Google Scholar
- 28.Paez-Victor M. Community-based Participatory Research: Community Respondent Feedback. In: 1st International Conference on Inner City Health, Toronto; 2002.Google Scholar
- 30.Travers R, Leaver C, McClelland A. Assessing HIV vulnerability among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual (LGBT) and 2-spirited youth who migrate to Toronto. Can J Infect Dis. 2002;13(Suppl A) Abstract # 408.Google Scholar
- 31.Carolo H, Travers R. Challenges, complexities and solutions: A unique HIV research partnership in Toronto, Canada. J Urban Health. 2005;82:ii42.Google Scholar
- 35.Flicker S, Gierman N, Nayar R. Seeding Research: Sprouting Change. In: Poster Presentation 4th International Conference on Urban Health, Toronto, Canada; October 2005.Google Scholar
- 36.Canadian Aboriginal AIDS Network. Ownership, Control, Access and Possession (OCAP). Available at: http://www.linkup-connexion.ca/catalog/prodImages/042805095650_314.pdf#search=%22CAAN%20OCAP%22. Accessed on: 3 Oct 2006.
- 37.Ogden R. Report on Research Ethics Review in Community-based HIV/AIDS Research. Vancouver: Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network under contract with AIDS Vancouver; 1999. Available at: http://cbr.cbrc.net/files/1029213009/Ogden%20Ethics%20Report.pdf. Accessed on: 22 Feb 2007.
- 47.Firehook K. Protocol and Guidelines for Ethical and Effective Research of Community Based Collaborative Processes. Tuscun: Community Based Collaboratives Research Consortium; 2003.Google Scholar
- 49.Flicker S. Critical Issues in Community-based Participatory Research. Toronto: Department of Public Health Sciences, University of Toronto; 2005.Google Scholar
- 52.Borzekowski DLG, Ipp L, Diaz A, Rickert VI, Fortenberry JD. At what cost? The current state of participant payment in adolescent research. J Adolesc Health. 2002;30(2):126–126.Google Scholar
- 55.Calleson D, Kauper-Brown J, Seifer S. Community-engaged Scholarship Toolkit. Seattle: Community–Campus Partnerships for Health; 2005.Google Scholar
- 56.Institute of Medicine. The Future of the Public’s Health in the 21st Century. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences Press; 2002.Google Scholar
- 57.Seifer SD, Shore N, Holmes SL. Developing and Sustaining Community–University Partnerships for Health Research: Infrastructure Requirements. A Report to the NIH Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research. Seattle: Community–Campus Partnerships for Health; 2003.Google Scholar
- 58.George A, Van Bibber M. Report to Vancouver Foundation of Ethical Review Framework for Community-based Research Vancouver. Vancouver: Vancouver Foundation (BC Medical Services Foundation) and The University of British Columbia; 2003.Google Scholar
- 59.Palermo A-G, McGranaghan R, Travers R. Unit 3: developing a CBPR partnership—creating the “glue”. In: The Examining Community–Institutional Partnerships for Prevention Research Group, ed. Developing and Sustaining Community-based Participatory Research Partnerships: A Skill-building Curriculum. Seattle: Community Campus Partnerships for Health (CCPH); 2006. Available at: http://www.cbprcurriculum.info. Accessed on: 22 Feb 2007.
- 60.National Research Council and Institute of Medicine. Ethical Considerations for Research on Housing-related Health Hazards Involving Children. Report Brief. National Academy of Sciences; 2005. Available at: http://www.iom.edu/Object.File/Master/32/245/Housing%20Ethics%20web.pdf. Accessed on: 1 Nov 2006.