OBJECTIVE: To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. STUDY DESIGN: Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.
OBJECTIVE: To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING: Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. STUDY DESIGN: Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. CONCLUSIONS: Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach
Authors: Karin Nelson; Rosa Elena Garcia; Julie Brown; Carol M Mangione; Thomas A Louis; Emmett Keeler; Shan Cretin Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Hanna Ezzat; Sue Ross; Peter von Dadelszen; Tara Morris; Robert Liston; Laura A Magee Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2010-07-30 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Charles W Lidz; Ekaterina Pivovarova; Paul Appelbaum; Deborah F Stiles; Alexandra Murray; Robert L Klitzman Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2018-10-04
Authors: Patrick R Varley; Ulrike Feske; Shasha Gao; Roslyn A Stone; Sijian Zhang; Robert Monte; Robert M Arnold; Daniel E Hall Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2016-06-08 Impact factor: 2.192
Authors: Monica Taljaard; Charles Weijer; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Judith Belle Brown; Ariella Binik; Robert Boruch; Jamie C Brehaut; Shazia H Chaudhry; Martin P Eccles; Andrew McRae; Raphael Saginur; Merrick Zwarenstein; Allan Donner Journal: Trials Date: 2009-07-28 Impact factor: 2.279