Article info
PDFResearch ethics
Paper
How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
- Correspondece to Dr Robert Klitzman, Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, 1051 Riverside Dr, Unit 15, New York, NY 10032, USA; rlk2{at}columbia.edu
Citation
How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
Publication history
- Received December 8, 2011
- Revised June 13, 2012
- Accepted July 18, 2012
- First published September 14, 2012.
Online issue publication
April 27, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (27 April 2016).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions
Other content recommended for you
- Variations in institutional review board processes and consent requirements for trauma research: an EAST multicenter survey
- How US institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies
- The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study
- When are clinical trials beneficial for study patients and future patients? A factorial vignette-based survey of institutional review board members
- Ethics committees for biomedical research in some African emerging countries: which establishment for which independence? A comparison with the USA and Canada
- ‘Ethical responsibility’ or ‘a whole can of worms’: differences in opinion on incidental finding review and disclosure in neuroimaging research from focus group discussions with participants, parents, IRB members, investigators, physicians and community members
- Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects
- A qualitative study of institutional review board members’ experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent
- Clinical research with economically disadvantaged populations
- Payment for research participation: a coercive offer?