Does Accreditation Improve the Protection of Human Research Subjects and the Quality of Institutional Review Board Reviews?

2025 · doi:10.32388/ozpo3c
preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

Twenty-five years ago, the Institute of Medicine recommended voluntary, external accreditation of human research protection programs to enhance the protection of human subjects participating in research and to preserve public trust in our system of protecting human research subjects. Today, accreditation of human research protection programs as well as independent institutional review boards has been well established. It is carried out by a sole accrediting organization, the Association for Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs, Incorporated. However, there has been no evaluation of whether accreditation improves human research subject protection or the quality of institutional review board reviews, and whether accreditation is cost-effective. Thus, it is imperative that we find out whether accreditation has achieved its primary objective of enhancing human research subject protection and the quality of institutional review board reviews.
Full text 621 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
There is a newer version available for this {{ publicationType }}. View latest version {{ publication.field_name }} {{ publication.subfield_name }} Copyright: © {{ publicationYear }} {{ publication.presentation_authors[0].full_name + (publication.presentation_authors.length > 1 ? ' et al' : '') }}. This is an open access publication distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Check the {{ publicationType | capitalize }} Source for copyright and license information. Listen on

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

⚙ Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback ⓘ

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00