IRB Consent Guidelines: Potential Barriers to Diversity in Research.
Despite initiatives aimed at improving study participation and inclusion among ethnic and racially minoritized and marginalized populations, participation remains low. While necessary to ensure ethical practice in human participant research, certain Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines may in...
| Publicado en: | Health Promotion Practice Vol. 27; no. 2; pp. 214 - 217 |
|---|---|
| Autores principales: | , |
| Formato: | Journal Article |
| Publicado: |
Sage Publications Inc.
Mar2026
|
| Acceso en línea: | Ver este registro en EBSCOhost |
| fields | @attributes: recordID: 1 pdfLink: plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=191630772&site=ehost-live header: @attributes: shortDbName: ccm uiTerm: 191630772 longDbName: CINAHL Complete uiTag: AN controlInfo: bkinfo: dissinfo: jinfo: jid: 15248399 IS2 jtl: Health Promotion Practice issn: 15248399 maglogo: Y pubinfo: dt: Mar2026 vid: 27 iid: 2 pid: 344 pub: Sage Publications Inc. place: Thousand Oaks, California artinfo: ui: 191630772 178760697 10.1177/15248399241268327 191630772 ppf: 214 ppct: 3 formats: tig: atl: IRB Consent Guidelines: Potential Barriers to Diversity in Research. aug: au: Decker, Evan Chongsuwat, Tana affil: University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA sug: subj: Institutional Review Research Subjects Minority Groups Translations Consent Healthcare Disparities Communication Barriers Limited English Proficiency Immigrants Study Design Cultural Competence Refugees Health Literacy Access to Information Cultural Diversity ab: Despite initiatives aimed at improving study participation and inclusion among ethnic and racially minoritized and marginalized populations, participation remains low. While necessary to ensure ethical practice in human participant research, certain Institutional Review Board (IRB) guidelines may introduce additional barriers in research involving these populations. This work outlines guidelines pertaining to consent translation for non-English speaking populations and offers discussion on a greater emphasis for more inclusive methods for marginalized communities. The University of Wisconsin's IRB approved alternative oral consent processes after the community partner determined that standard translation processes would be inefficient. Researchers used translated consent materials for four different ethnic groups (Hmong, Karen, Karenni, and Burmese). We provided recorded consents in each respective language to participants before study participation and obtained verbal consent prior to study participation at the study location. We experienced time and resource constraints in both access to translators and the consent-translation process itself. Furthermore, many participants were unable to read in their native language making standard written consent processes both difficult and impractical. Oral discussion and verbal consent processes were efficient. Adjustments to consent-related guidelines may prevent and eliminate time and resource-related barriers in consent processes. In eliminating such barriers, subsequent improved efficiency in both study design and study promotion areas can work to better promote diversity in research among populations that emphasize oral language and in instances where literacy rates in written non-English language may be lower. pubtype: Academic Journal doctype: Journal Article ougenre: Article language: English refInfo: holdings: @attributes: islocal: N |
|---|