IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Protecting the Vulnerable and Including the Under-Represented: IRB Practices and Attitudes.

Since their inception, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been charged with protecting the vulnerable in research. More recently, attention has turned to whether IRBs also have a role to play in ensuring representative study samples and promoting the inclusion of historically under-represented groups. These two aims-protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented-can pull in different directions, given the potential for overlap between the vulnerable and the under-represented. We conducted a pilot, online national survey of IRB Chairs to gauge attitudes and practices with regard to protecting the vulnerable and including the under-represented in research. We found that IRBs extend the concept of vulnerability to different groups across various contexts, are confident that they effectively protect vulnerable individuals in research, and believe that IRBs have a role to play in ensuring representative samples and the inclusion of under-represented groups.

Excluding People With Disabilities From Clinical Research: Eligibility Criteria Lack Clarity And Justification.

The exclusion of people with disabilities from clinical research without appropriate justification is discriminatory, is counter to federal regulations and research guidelines, and limits study generalizability. This matter is understudied, and data on the disability status of trial participants are rarely collected or reported. We analyzed ninety-seven recent interventional protocols in four therapeutic areas registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Eighty-five percent of protocols allowed broad investigator discretion to determine eligibility, whereas only 18 percent explicitly permitted people with disabilities to use forms of support (such as supported decision making or assistive devices) to facilitate study participation. Eligibility criteria affecting people with disabilities included exclusions for psychiatric (68 percent), substance use (62 percent), HIV or hepatitis (53 percent), cognitive or intellectual (42 percent), visual (34 percent), hearing (10 percent), mobility (9 percent), long-term care (6 percent), and speech and communication (3 percent) disability-related domains. Documented justification was provided for only 24 percent of these exclusions. We recommend greater scrutiny of study eligibility criteria, scientific or ethical justification of exclusions, and accessible study design.

Fair payment and just benefits to enhance diversity in clinical research.

Routine, nonmedical and ancillary medical costs associated with participation in clinical research create barriers to enrollment for economically disadvantaged individuals. To the extent that race, ethnicity, and gender are linked to SES, such barriers impact efforts to diversify clinical research enrollment. But payment policies and practices often reflect the longstanding and singular concern that payment to participants will bias decision-making and compromise informed consent. We argue that this concern must be viewed in a larger ethical context in which the untoward consequences for the individual participant and for the broader research enterprise are considerable when either inadequate or no payment is provided for expenses incurred ("reimbursement") and time committed ("compensation"). Fairness in payment and protection from undue influence of payment on the informed consent process are important but distinct ethical considerations. Fundamentally, approaches to payment that leave participants financially worse off as a consequence of taking part in research are inherently unjust as they have a differential impact on recruitment and retention based on socioeconomic status. Sponsors, funders, investigators, and IRBs must be cognizant of the impact of inadequate payment on clinical trial inclusion of historically understudied groups. We address practical and fair payment strategies to advance inclusion, the additional barrier of ancillary medical costs, and potential unintended consequences of payment.

Participation in HIV Behavioral Research: Unanticipated Benefits and Burdens.

HIV behavioral research has provided an invaluable knowledge base for effective approaches to behavioral challenges along the HIV care cascade. Little attention has been paid to tracking unanticipated effects of research participation, whether negative or positive. We used qualitative methods to elicit impressions of unanticipated effects of participation in behavioral research. An instrument was developed and piloted to assess positive (emotional gains, practical gains, HIV prevention knowledge and skills gains) and negative (emotional stress, discomfort with research) unanticipated effects. Participants (N = 25) from five projects, including men who have sex with men, adults who use substances, and youth, reported multiple positive unanticipated effects (sexual and drug risk reduction, goal setting, improvements in self-esteem and mood, relationship gains, health care behavior gains, knowledge and introspection gains) and rare unanticipated negative effects. Developing a systematic tool of unanticipated positive and negative effects of participation in behavioral research is a crucial next step.