HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: AJPH.2008.149310v1 99/8/1510    most recent Submit a response View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by McGrath, M. M. Articles by Fullilove, M. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by McGrath, M. M. Articles by Fullilove, M. T. Related Collections Community Health Ethics Other Environment

Moriah McSharry McGrath, MPH, MSUP, Robert E. Fullilove, EdD, Molly Rose Kaufman, MS, Rodrick Wallace, PhD and Mindy Thompson Fullilove, MD

At the time of study, the authors were with the Community Research Group of the New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, and the Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York.

Correspondence: Correspondence should be sent to Moriah McSharry McGrath, Nohad A. Toulan School of Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University, PO Box 751-USP, Portland, OR 97207 (e-mail: moriah{at}pdx.edu). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking on the "Reprints/Eprints" link.

Objectives. We assessed the effectiveness of various systems of community participation in ethical review of environmental health research.

Methods. We used situation analysis methods and a global workspace theoretical framework to conduct comparative case studies of 3 research organizations at 1 medical center.

Results. We found a general institutional commitment to community review as well as personal commitment from some participants in the process. However, difficulty in communicating across divides of knowledge and privilege created serious gaps in implementation, leaving research vulnerable to validity threats (such as misinterpretation of findings) and communities vulnerable to harm. The methods used in each collaboration solved some, but not all, of the problems that hindered communication.

Conclusions. Researchers, community spokespersons, and institutional review boards constitute organizational groups with strong internal ties and highly developed cultures. Few cross-linkages and little knowledge of each other cause significant distortion of information and other forms of miscommunication between groups. Our data suggest that organizations designed to protect human volunteers are in the best position to take the lead in implementing community review.