How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence
Share this article
Click the icon of the social media platform on which you would like to share this article.
Email this article to a friend
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.
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?