Advancing the theory of collective empowerment: A qualitative study

In order to fully describe the construct of empowerment and to determine possible measures for this construct in racially and ethnically diverse neighborhoods, a qualitative study based on Grounded Theory was conducted at both the individual and collective levels. Participants for the study included 49 grassroots experts on community empowerment who were interviewed through semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The researcher also conducted field observations as part of the research protocol.^ The results of the study identified benchmarks of individual and collective empowerment and hundreds of possible markers of collective empowerment applicable in diverse communities. Results also indicated that community involvement is essential in the selection and implementation of proper measures. Additional findings were that the construct of empowerment involves specific principles of empowering relationships and particular motivational factors. All of these findings lead to a two dimensional model of empowerment based on the concepts of relationships among members of a collective body and the collective body's desire for socio-political change.^ These results suggest that the design, implementation, and evaluation of programs that foster empowerment must be based on collaborative ventures between the population being served and program staff because of the interactive, synergistic nature of the construct. In addition, empowering programs should embrace specific principles and processes of individual and collective empowerment in order to maximize their effectiveness and efficiency. And finally, the results suggest that collaboratively choosing markers to measure the processes and outcomes of empowerment in the main systems and populations living in today's multifaceted communities is a useful mechanism to determine change. ^

Federally regulated institutional review boards: The aspects of a "model" IRB---Is the current system in need of a tune up or complete overhaul?

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are the primary gatekeepers for the protection of ethical standards of federally regulated research on human subjects in this country. This paper focuses on what general, broad measures that may be instituted or enhanced to exemplify a "model IRB". This is done by examining the current regulatory standards of federally regulated IRBs, not private or commercial boards, and how many of those standards have been found either inadequate or not generally understood or followed. The analysis includes suggestions on how to bring about changes in order to make the IRB process more efficient, less subject to litigation, and create standardized educational protocols for members. The paper also considers how to include better oversight for multi-center research, increased centralization of IRBs, utilization of Data Safety Monitoring Boards when necessary, payment for research protocol review, voluntary accreditation, and the institution of evaluation/quality assurance programs. ^ This is a policy study utilizing secondary analysis of publicly available data. Therefore, the research for this paper focuses on scholarly medical/legal journals, web information from the Department of Health and Human Services, Federal Drug Administration, and the Office of the Inspector General, Accreditation Programs, law review articles, and current regulations applicable to the relevant portions of the paper. ^ Two issues are found to be consistently cited by the literature as major concerns. One is a need for basic, standardized educational requirements across all IRBs and its members, and secondly, much stricter and more informed management of continuing research. There is no federally regulated formal education system currently in place for IRB members, except for certain NIH-based trials. Also, IRBs are not keeping up with research once a study has begun, and although regulated to do so, it does not appear to be a great priority. This is the area most in danger of increased litigation. Other issues such as voluntary accreditation and outcomes evaluation are slowing gaining steam as the processes are becoming more available and more sought after, such as JCAHO accrediting of hospitals. ^ Adopting the principles discussed in this paper should promote better use of a local IRBs time, money, and expertise for protecting the vulnerable population in their care. Without further improvements to the system, there is concern that private and commercial IRBs will attempt to create a monopoly on much of the clinical research in the future as they are not as heavily regulated and can therefore offer companies quicker and more convenient reviews. IRBs need to consider the advantages of charging for their unique and important services as a cost of doing business. More importantly, there must be a minimum standard of education for all IRB members in the area of the ethical standards of human research and a greater emphasis placed on the follow-up of ongoing research as this is the most critical time for study participants and may soon lead to the largest area for litigation. Additionally, there should be a centralized IRB for multi-site trials or a study website with important information affecting the trial in real time. There needs to be development of standards and metrics to assess the performance of the IRBs for quality assurance and outcome evaluations. The boards should not be content to run the business of human subjects' research without determining how well that function is actually being carried out. It is important that federally regulated IRBs provide excellence in human research and promote those values most important to the public at large.^

Systematic interpretation of molecular beacon polymerase chain reaction for identifying rpoB mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with mixed resistant and susceptible bacteria

Detection of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), a frequent cause of treatment failure, takes 2 or more weeks to identify by culture. RIF-resistance is a hallmark of MDR-TB, and detection of mutations in the rpoB gene of Mycobacterium tuberculosis using molecular beacon probes with real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) is a novel approach that takes ≤2 days. However, qPCR identification of resistant isolates, particularly for isolates with mixed RIF-susceptible and RIF-resistant bacteria, is reader dependent and limits its clinical use. The aim of this study was to develop an objective, reader-independent method to define rpoB mutants using beacon qPCR. This would facilitate the transition from a research protocol to the clinical setting, where high-throughput methods with objective interpretation are required. For this, DNAs from 107 M. tuberculosis clinical isolates with known susceptibility to RIF by culture-based methods were obtained from 2 regions where isolates have not previously been subjected to evaluation using molecular beacon qPCR: the Texas–Mexico border and Colombia. Using coded DNA specimens, mutations within an 81-bp hot spot region of rpoB were established by qPCR with 5 beacons spanning this region. Visual and mathematical approaches were used to establish whether the qPCR cycle threshold of the experimental isolate was significantly higher (mutant) compared to a reference wild-type isolate. Visual classification of the beacon qPCR required reader training for strains with a mixture of RIF-susceptible and RIF-resistant bacteria. Only then had the visual interpretation by an experienced reader had 100% sensitivity and 94.6% specificity versus RIF-resistance by culture phenotype and 98.1% sensitivity and 100% specificity versus mutations based on DNA sequence. The mathematical approach was 98% sensitive and 94.5% specific versus culture and 96.2% sensitive and 100% specific versus DNA sequence. Our findings indicate the mathematical approach has advantages over the visual reading, in that it uses a Microsoft Excel template to eliminate reader bias or inexperience, and allows objective interpretation from high-throughput analyses even in the presence of a mixture of RIF-resistant and RIF-susceptible isolates without the need for reader training.^