In multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, the single REB review model is best described as

In multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, the single REB review model is best described as

• A. Required for all studies
• B. Optional, but preferred
• C. Not allowed
• D. Mandatory in all jurisdictions

Answer: (B)

In multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, the aim is to avoid duplicating ethics reviews across sites by having one REB review the project for all participating locations, with the other sites relying on that single decision. This streamlines oversight, speeds up approvals, and promotes consistent protections for participants when the risk level is minimal and the research contexts are similar. However, this is not a universal requirement across all jurisdictions or institutions; some places still require or prefer local input or independent reviews, and reliance on a single REB is typically governed by formal arrangements to ensure appropriate accountability and consideration of local context. So the single-REB model is best described as optional but preferred, rather than mandatory everywhere, because its use depends on institutional policies, inter-jurisdictional agreements, and the presence of any site-specific considerations that must be addressed.

In multi-jurisdictional minimal risk research, the aim is to avoid duplicating ethics reviews across sites by having one REB review the project for all participating locations, with the other sites relying on that single decision. This streamlines oversight, speeds up approvals, and promotes consistent protections for participants when the risk level is minimal and the research contexts are similar. However, this is not a universal requirement across all jurisdictions or institutions; some places still require or prefer local input or independent reviews, and reliance on a single REB is typically governed by formal arrangements to ensure appropriate accountability and consideration of local context.

So the single-REB model is best described as optional but preferred, rather than mandatory everywhere, because its use depends on institutional policies, inter-jurisdictional agreements, and the presence of any site-specific considerations that must be addressed.