Literature DB >> 15258484

Economies of scale in institutional review boards.

Todd H Wagner1, Anne Marie E Cruz, Gary L Chadwick.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research with human subjects is essential for most clinical and social science research. As such, the ethical treatment of subjects, including the role of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), is of paramount concern. The prevailing system of IRBs in the United States reflects an integrated approach in which research organizations have their own local IRB. Recent regulatory changes and a few high-profile problems have prompted proposals for greater investments in IRBs.
OBJECTIVES: We conducted regression analyses, looking at how IRB size was associated with IRB costs (economies of scale). RESEARCH
DESIGN: We studied data from a cross-sectional survey.
SUBJECTS: We studied IRBs at Veterans Affairs (VA) and VA-affiliated medical centers (n = 109); 81 (73%) IRB administrators completed the survey. Fourteen of the administrators had missing data and were excluded from final analysis, leaving a sample of 67. MEASURES: The primary dependent variable was IRB costs in 2001, which we estimated from the survey. Independent variables included IRB size measured as the number of actions (ie, number of initial reviews, amendments, continuing/annual reviews, and harms/adverse event reports) reviewed by the IRB in the last year.
RESULTS: The results indicate that very large economies of scale exist, especially for IRBs that handle fewer than 150 actions per year.
CONCLUSIONS: A discussion of the costs of benefits of having 3000 to 5000 local IRBs in the United States is warranted because other organizational arrangements could be economically and socially advantageous.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15258484     DOI: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000132395.32967.d4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Care        ISSN: 0025-7079            Impact factor:   2.983


  6 in total

Review 1.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

Review 2.  A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn.

Authors:  Lura Abbott; Christine Grady
Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 1.742

3.  Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group's report on optimizing the IRB process.

Authors:  Alice M Mascette; Gordon R Bernard; Donna Dimichele; Jesse A Goldner; Robert Harrington; Paul A Harris; Hilary S Leeds; Thomas A Pearson; Bonnie Ramsey; Todd H Wagner
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 6.893

4.  Costs and benefits of the national cancer institute central institutional review board.

Authors:  Todd H Wagner; Christine Murray; Jacquelyn Goldberg; Jeanne M Adler; Jeffrey Abrams
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-10-19       Impact factor: 44.544

5.  IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis.

Authors:  Kimberly Shoenbill; Yiqiang Song; Nichelle L Cobb; Marc K Drezner; Eneida A Mendonca
Journal:  J Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2017-04-26

6.  A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Tavis P Hayes; Jamie C Brehaut; Michael McDonald; Charles Weijer; Raphael Saginur; Dean Fergusson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.