A survey study of institutional review board thought processes in the United States and South Korea.

Introduction: In the last several decades, South Korea has rapidly adopted Western customs and practices. Yet, cultural differences between South Korea and the United States exist. The purpose of this study was to identify and characterize potential cultural differences in the Korean and US institutional review board (IRB) approach to certain topics.

Methods: A qualitative analysis of a 9-item survey, describing 4 research study case scenarios, sent to IRB members from the United States and South Korea. The case scenarios involved the following issues: (1) the need for consent for retrospective chart review when research subjects receive their care after the study is conceived; (2) child assent; (3) individual versus population benefit; and (4) exception from informed consent in emergency resuscitation research. The free-text responses were analyzed and abstracted for recurrent themes.

Results: Twenty-three of the 45 survey recipients completed the survey, for an overall response rate of 51%. The themes that emerged were as follows: (1) the importance of parental authority among Korean participants versus the importance of child autonomy and child assent among US participants; (2) the recognition of the rights of a proxy or surrogate who can represent an individual's values by all participants; and (3) the importance of the community, expressed by the Korean respondents, versus individualism, expressed by US respondents.

Conclusion: Whereas US participants appear to emphasize the importance of the individual and the autonomy of a child, the Korean respondents stressed the importance of parental authority and benefiting the community, above and beyond that of the individual person. However, there was substantial overlap in the themes expressed by respondents from both countries.