Challenges and Best Practices in Ethical Review of Human and Organizational Factors Studies in Health Technology: a Synthesis of Testimonies

Abstract

Summary Objective: Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) studies in health technology involve human beings and thus require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Yet HOF studies have specific constraints and methods that may not fit standard regulations and IRB practices. Gaining IRB approval may pose difficulties for HOF researchers. This paper aims to provide a first overview of HOF study challenges to get IRB review by exploring differences and best practices across different countries. Methods: HOF researchers were contacted by email to provide a testimony about their experience with IRB review and approval. Testimonies were thematically analyzed and synthesized to identify and discuss shared themes. Results: Researchers from seven European countries, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States answered the call. Four themes emerged that indicate shared challenges in legislation, IRB inefficiencies and inconsistencies, general regulation and costs, and lack of HOF study knowledge by IRB members. We propose a model for IRB review of HOF studies based on best practices. Conclusion: International criteria are needed that define low and high-risk HOF studies, to allow identification of studies that can undergo an expedited (or exempted) process from those that need full IRB review. Enhancing IRB processes in such a way would be beneficial to the conduct of HOF studies. Greater knowledge and promotion of HOF methods and evidence-based HOF study designs may support the evolving discipline. Based on these insights, training and guidance to IRB members may be developed to support them in ensuring that appropriate ethical issues for HOF studies are considered.

Development of a Connected Sensor System in Colorectal Surgery: User-Centered Design Case Study

“…Ethical approval was not sought in France. As a noninterventional human factors study, which posed minimal risk to the participants, this study was deemed to fall outside the scope of the Jardé Law [ 31 ].…”

Comparison of the validity, perceived usefulness and usability of I-MeDeSA and TEMAS, two tools to evaluate alert system usability: a study protocol

“…The French law governing 'research involving the human person' exempts human and social science studies from requiring approval from an ethics committee. 25 For practical reasons, the data being collected are identifiable but will be deidentified for data analysis. This study is therefore subject to the European GDPR law 26 : a declaration of the protocol to the French National Commission on Informatics and Liberty has been made.…”

Evidence-Based Health Informatics as the Foundation for the COVID-19 Response: A Joint Call for Action

“…With regard to human factors research for health care informatics, we are currently performing a global research on the design aspects and acceptation factors of the official applications that have been introduced to monitor and mitigate the outbreaks of the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, we are working on the development of a model to promote and support the performance of ethical review board assessment of user centered design research of health information technology 41 The objective of this model is to promote the performance of these studies in a way that respects the participants' integrity without undermining the innovation and the responsiveness of research teams, a prerequisite for coping with fast-spreading pandemics such as that of COVID-19 Creating data silos and sharing data of low quality that might lead to misguiding conclusions Data privacy: to ensure privacy we should apply the principles of privacy by design which minimizes potential risks before any system is launched. Including the prevention of potential cyberattacks to health information systems or the design of contact tracing solutions that pose a risk to the privacy of citizens.…”