OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the variability in requirements among six institutional review boards (IRBs) and the resulting protocol variations for a multicenter mailed survey. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We utilized a cross-sectional mailed survey to gather information on long-term psychosocial outcomes of prophylactic mastectomy among women at six health maintenance organizations, all of which are part of the Cancer Research Network. In the context of this collaborative study, we characterized the impact of the different sites' IRB review processes on the study protocol and participation. RESULTS: IRB review resulted in site differences in physician consent prior to participant contact, invitation letter content and signatories, and incentive type. The review process required two to eight modifications beyond the initial application and resulted in unanticipated delays and costs. CONCLUSION: Site-to-site variability in IRB requirements may adversely impact scientific rigor and delay implementation of collaborative studies, especially when not considered in project planning. IRB review is an essential aspect of research but one that can present substantial challenges for multicenter studies.
OBJECTIVE: This study assesses the variability in requirements among six institutional review boards (IRBs) and the resulting protocol variations for a multicenter mailed survey. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We utilized a cross-sectional mailed survey to gather information on long-term psychosocial outcomes of prophylactic mastectomy among women at six health maintenance organizations, all of which are part of the Cancer Research Network. In the context of this collaborative study, we characterized the impact of the different sites' IRB review processes on the study protocol and participation. RESULTS: IRB review resulted in site differences in physician consent prior to participant contact, invitation letter content and signatories, and incentive type. The review process required two to eight modifications beyond the initial application and resulted in unanticipated delays and costs. CONCLUSION: Site-to-site variability in IRB requirements may adversely impact scientific rigor and delay implementation of collaborative studies, especially when not considered in project planning. IRB review is an essential aspect of research but one that can present substantial challenges for multicenter studies.
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: K L Edwards; A A Lemke; S B Trinidad; S M Lewis; H Starks; M T Quinn Griffin; G L Wiesner Journal: Public Health Genomics Date: 2011-04-11 Impact factor: 2.000
Authors: Larissa Nekhlyudov; Sarah M Greene; Jessica Chubak; Borsika Rabin; Leah Tuzzio; Sharon Rolnick; Terry S Field Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2012-12-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Amy A Lemke; Susan B Trinidad; Karen L Edwards; Helene Starks; Georgia L Wiesner Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2010-03 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Michael P Diamond; Esther Eisenberg; Hao Huang; Christos Coutifaris; Richard S Legro; Karl R Hansen; Anne Z Steiner; Marcelle Cedars; Kurt Barnhart; Tracy Ziolek; Tracey R Thomas; Kate Maurer; Stephen A Krawetz; Robert A Wild; J C Trussell; Nanette Santoro; Heping Zhang Journal: Clin Trials Date: 2018-10-24 Impact factor: 2.486
Authors: Gregg H Gilbert; Vibeke Qvist; Sheila D Moore; D Brad Rindal; Jeffrey L Fellows; Valeria V Gordan; O Dale Williams Journal: J Public Health Dent Date: 2010 Impact factor: 1.821