Comments and Constructive Criticism
Article 1
Wonderful article!!! Anyone who reads this article, the first thing he/she will
acknowledge is that before any project is incorporated in any institution, it is paramount for
certain governing entities to go through the project and approve it (Too & Weaver, 2014). This is
a very important step in project implementation since the officials ensure that the project is in
line with the set standards of the institution. From this article, it is has been brought out clearly
that projects that entail private practice do not require large groups of governing entities for
approval. For instance, the project in this case just requires a physician for approval prior to
implementation.
The author suggests that projects which do not result in drastic change in company
policies do not require an IRB. Additionally, IRB is only required in research that has not been
conducted before to ensure that the research is carried out in a manner that is in accordance with
the set rules and regulations (Department of Health, 2014). Governing entities scrutinize any
change before it is implemented. One of the most common issue that is questioned at this stage is
who is going to be in charge of the project and will the individuals be committed enough to
achieve the set objectives (Lawrence, 2013). The author fails to mention a thing or two about
this.
Article 2
This is another wonderful article. The author suggests that pharmacogenetics is an
important tool that can be used clinically to in the diagnosis of elderly patients. The author
highlights that IRB is only required for research projects that create new knowledge that
generalizes other populations and involves human subjects. According to Booth et al, the major
COMMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM
challenge that can hinder effective implementation of pharmacogenetics in health care
institutions is ethical implications since it entails testing of an individual’s DNA before drug
prescription (Booth et al., 2014).
Article 3
Just like the previous two articles, this article also indicates that it is imperative for
governing entities to approve projects before they are implemented. According to this author, an
IRB can approve or disapprove certain research projects depending on whether they follow FDA
regulations or not. To enforce, IRBs make good use of review research protocols and related
materials to make sure that the rights of human subjects that are involved in the research project
are well protected and all HIPPA laws are followed. Lastly, the article informs that governing
entities do not question follow up projects (Bell, 2014). However, the providers should question
the reliability of the research method involved. Using phone calls is sometimes a challenge
because of the possibility of the respondents having divided attention during the research and
may end up giving inaccurate information.
COMMENTS AND CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM
References
Bell, J. (2014). Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Booth, T. C., Jackson, A., Wardlaw, J. M., Taylor, S. A., & Waldman, A. D. (2014). Incidental
findings found in “healthy” volunteers during imaging performed for research: current
legal and ethical implications. The British journal of radiology.
Department of Health, E. (2014). The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the
protection of human subjects of research. The Journal of the American College of
Dentists, 81(3), 4.
Lawrence, D. P. (2013). Impact assessment. John Wiley & Sons, Inc..
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
1382-1394.