This study was conducted using retrospective data to try to discern if there is a prevalence of positive HIV cases from one race to another. “A retrospective study uses existing data that have been recorded for reasons other than research. In health care these are often called “chart reviews” because the data source is the medical record” (Hess , 2004).  This can be both beneficial and a risk to the study itself. It is beneficial because the study can be done quickly to answer the specific question they are trying to solve which in this case seems to be does one race have a higher prevalence of positive HIV cases than the others. However, this study only examined 2 years’ worth of data which could also limit the study results.  You pull the “charts” of positive cases and write down the list race and move on to the next patient. In this particular case you risk the patient notating the wrong race whether intentionally or accidently. There could also be the risk of false negatives being excluded from your study all together as they are only examining the positive HIV results. A benefit to this kind of study would be that the patients can maintain their anonymity but there is always a risk that the information could be leaked and become public knowledge.

It would concern me with only evaluating the cases at government funded clinics that you are eliminating a large portion of the population that utilize private sector clinics. By using government funded clinics you could potentially be limiting you results to those that fall beneath a certain economic threshold and if those living in poverty are by far a certain race then your study results will also be skewed. There is little risk to the general public as the retrospective data collection has already occurred however it should be noted that if the incorrect conclusion is made from the data it could lead to societal disturbances such as stereotyping of a certain race that being a person of that race leads to a elevated risk of contracting HIV. However, if this data is accurate and not skewed then it allows the general public to become more education on HIV causes and prevention which could lower the incident rates and it would allow medical providers to accurately give their patients the information they need to be able to lower their risks.

It is my belief that this type of study would be considered exempt as it is minimal risk to the examined population. This means that although the researches need the proposal to be on file it would not need to undergo formal review. According to John Carroll University this study would fall under “Exempt 2: Minimal-Risk Tests, Surveys, Interview, or Observations” because the results are anonymous this falls under “de-identified” as “The information obtained is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that the identity of the human subjects cannot readily be ascertained, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects”  (Types of IRB Review).  It would need a more formal review if the results were not obtained from retrospective data.

Resources:

Hess, D. R. (2004). Retrospective Studies and Chart Reviews. Respiratory Care, 49(10). doi:http://www.rcjournal.com/contents/10.04/10.04.1171.pdf

Types of IRB Review. (n.d.). Retrieved June 11, 2020, from http://sites.jcu.edu/research/pages/irb/review/review-types/