| || |
|Title:||PERSPECTIVE OF RESEARCHERS ON ETHICS REVIEW OF NEUROIMAGING RESEARCH IN CANADA|
| || |
|Authors/Affiliations:||2 Constance Deslauriers*; 1 Eric Racine; 3 Bruce Pike; 4 Julien Doyon; 1 Emily Bell; 1 Nicole Palmour; |
1 Insititut de recherches cliniques de Montréal; 2 Institut de recherches cliniques de Montréal; 3 Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill university; 4 Université de Montréal, QC, Canada
| || |
|Content:||Background: Advances in neuroimaging research have yielded insights into behavior emotion, personality, and cognition (REF). Based on emerging results, neuroimaging is being used to refine diagnosis in neurological and psychiatric disorders . Some neuroimaging services are being marketed directly to consumers despite important challenges in terms of external validity and varying approaches to data analysis and interpretation (Racine, Van der Loos, and Illes 2007). Related ethical challenges in matters of informed consent; incidental findings and privacy have surfaced (Marshall, Martin, Downie, Malisza 2007). However, the perspectives of researchers on current ethics review in Canada have not been investigated even though they are key stakeholders in current discussion.|
Aims: We embarked on an empirical study of researcher perspectives on the REB review process to specifically:
Examine the challenges of REB review of advanced neuroimaging research
Identify the practices of REB approval of advanced neuroimaging research and the language used to describe risks and ethical issues in informed consent forms of approved neuroimaging protocols;
Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with neuroimaging researchers and REB chairs. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed using the NVivo qualitative analysis software. We also conducted an on-line questionnaire survey to assess challenges in the REB process for neuroimaging research. Neuroimagers were asked to submit their two latest approved informed consent forms for further analysis.
Results and conclusion: Our preliminary results show important areas that future research and ongoing practices should address in particular demystifying the REB process; sharing tools for the management of incidental findings in neuroimaging research; and improving two-way communication between researchers and REBs.
| || |