From Submission to Approval: Navigating Full Board REB Review with Vulnerable Populations

Introduction: Securing Research Ethics Board (REB) approval for a greater-than-minimal-risk study within academic institutions can be a complex and time-consuming process. For novice researchers working with vulnerable populations, this challenge is complicated further by a lack of familiarity and transparency regarding full-board review procedures. Particularly, the researchers encountered this challenge when seeking REB approval to conduct a study to learn about the lived experiences of Ukrainian newcomer women engaged in sex work in Canada to make ends meet. 

Goals and Methods: The objective of this self-reflection study is to share lessons learned from a full REB review for a greater-than-minimal-risk qualitative study, and to better equip researchers with strategies to support their teams. Four research team members, comprising two novice researchers and their two research assistants, used a self-interview guide of questions to write individual reflections. These reflections, prompted by the questions in the guide, centred on the process of navigating REB approval for a study involving vulnerable populations to address the main study question, “What was the full board REB approval process like for me, and what lessons would I like to share with other researchers who may need to undergo a similar experience?” Content from the four reflective scripts was analyzed and thematically coded using Braun and Clarke’s (2019) framework.

Results: Lessons emerged across two key stages of the full-board review process. During preparation, researchers can anticipate potential delays, navigate ethical and legal complexities, and collaborate with community partner organizations. During and after the review, actionable strategies include presenting a concise overview to the review board, thoughtfully integrating feedback, and maintaining emotional well-being by utilizing strategies like “the 24-hour method” before initiating a response to REB feedback.

Conclusions: Experienced investigators, novice researchers, community partners, and REB members share a collaborative responsibility for safeguarding the well-being of vulnerable populations in research.