Abstract:Objective: In retrospective secondary data analysis studies, researchers often seek waiver of consent from institutional Review Boards (IRB) and minimize risk by utilizing complex software. Yet, little is known about the perspectives of IRB experts on these approaches. To facilitate effective communication about risk mitigation strategies using software, we conducted two studies with IRB experts to co-create appropriate language when describing a software to IRBs. Materials and methods: We conducted structured focus groups with IRB experts to solicit ideas on questions regarding benefits, risks, and informational needs. Based on these results, we developed a template IRB application and template responses for a generic study using privacy-enhancing software. We then conducted a three-round Delphi study to refine the template IRB application and the template responses based on expert panel feedback. To facilitate participants' deliberation, we shared the revisions and a summary of participants' feedback during each Delphi round. Results: 11 experts in two focus groups generated 13 ideas on risks, benefits, and informational needs. 17 experts participated in the Delphi study with 13 completing all rounds. Most agreed that privacy-enhancing software will minimize risk, but regardless all secondary data studies have an inherent risk of unexpected disclosures. The majority (84.6%) noted that subjects in retrospective secondary data studies experience no greater risks than the risks experienced in ordinary life in the modern digital society. Hence, all retrospective data-only studies with no contact with subjects would be minimal risk studies. Conclusion: First, we found fundamental disagreements in how some IRB experts view risks in secondary data research. Such disagreements are consequential because they can affect determination outcomes and might suggest IRBs at different institutions might come to different conclusions regarding similar study protocols. Second, the highest ranked risks and benefits of privacy-enhancing software in our study were societal rather than individual. The highest ranked benefits were facilitating more research and promoting responsible data governance practices. The highest ranked risks were risk of invalid results from systematic user error or erroneous algorithms. These societal considerations are typically more characteristic of public health ethics as opposed to the bioethical approach of research ethics, possibly reflecting the difficulty applying a bioethical approach (eg, informed consent) in secondary data studies. Finally, the development of privacy-enhancing technology for secondary data research depends on effective communication and collaboration between the privacy experts and technology developers. Privacy is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach that is best addressed through privacy-by-design principles. Privacy expert participation is important yet often neglected in this design process. This study suggests best practice strategies for engaging the privacy community through co-developing companion documents for software through participatory design to facilitate transparency and communication. In this case study, the final template IRB application and responses we released with the open-source software can be easily adapted by researchers to better communicate with their IRB when using the software. This can help increase responsible data governance practices when many software developers are not research ethics experts.

Risk Evaluation in Occupational Safety and Health Research: Results from a Benchmarking Exercise of Federal and Academic IRBs

Ranking Research Methodology by Risk — a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members

Process of risk assessment by research ethics committees: foundations, shortcomings and open questions

A Framework for Risk-Benefit Evaluations in Biomedical Research

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E)

Investigating Perceived Institutional Review Board Quality and Function Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool

Comparative Effectiveness Research: What to Do when Experts Disagree about Risks

Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

Improving the integration of epidemiological data into human health risk assessment: What risk assessors told us they want

Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

Psychology, ethics, and research ethics boards

Occupational health and safety risk assessment: A systematic literature review of models, methods, and applications

Case study on communicating with research ethics committees about minimizing risk through software: an application for record linkage in secondary data analysis

ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL (INDUSTRIAL) RISKS: NEW APPROACHES, IMPROVEMENTS, METHODOLOGY

Why are organisational approvals needed for low-risk staff studies in the UK? Procedures, barriers, and burdens

Overcoming the Challenges Inherent in Conducting Design Research in Mental Health Settings: Lessons from St. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton's Pre and Post-Occupancy Evaluation

Communicating Risks and Benefits in Informed Consent for Research: A Qualitative Study

RISK PERCEPTION AMONG WORKERS EXPOSED TO IONIZING RADIATION: A QUALITATIVE VIEW

SoK: Safer Digital-Safety Research Involving At-Risk Users