Version 2 2025-11-24, 05:11Version 2 2025-11-24, 05:11
Version 1 2025-10-06, 04:37Version 1 2025-10-06, 04:37
journal contribution
posted on 2025-11-24, 05:11authored byEmma TumiltyEmma Tumilty, Jake Young, Richard James, Kimberley Serpico, Ann Johnson, Emily E Anderson
REB membership and its local idioculture play a key role in the decisions made. Little evidence exists as to what composition of membership expertise and training creates the conditions for a board to be most effective. This scoping review of the empirical research on REB membership and expertise aims to outline what evidence has been gathered and what gaps exist. Our main research question was: What empirical research exists on how research ethics boards (REBs) identify and train members and ensure they have adequate expertise to review research protocols? We found a small and diverse body of literature from around the world. We summarized findings in four themes: scientific expertise, ethical, legal and regulatory training and expertise, diversity of identity and perspectives, and engagement with research participant perspectives. Studies reviewed identified issues for all aspects of membership expertise and training. Further work is needed to establish best practices.
Funding
Funder: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences | Grant ID: 5UL1TR001439-10
Funder: National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences | Grant ID: UL1TR002003-06S2