BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the nature of United States Institutional Review Board (IRB) policy in a broad spectrum of research settings regarding the return of results to study participants. METHOD: IRB policies or standard operating procedures of 207 Medical School, Industry and Non-medical School IRBs were examined on-line to determine if they incorporated specific reference to the return of results to participants at the conclusion of the research. RESULTS: The majority of IRBs had no available policy regarding the return of research results to participants [56% (n = 116)]. A further third 136.3% (n = 75)] had policies that were defined as vague or that only indirectly mentioned the return of results. Medical School IRBs were more likely to have a policy than Industry or Non-medical University IRBs, respectively (odds ratio, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.84 to 11.66 and odds ratio, 3.03; 95 % confidence interval, 1.75 to 5.25). Few provided any guidance as to the process of return of results. Of the IRBs that had a research results policy, 54.9% (n = 50) specifically addressed genetic research. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a marked lack of uniformity in IRB policy regarding the return of study results with over half providing no guidance.
BACKGROUND: This study aims to determine the nature of United States Institutional Review Board (IRB) policy in a broad spectrum of research settings regarding the return of results to study participants. METHOD: IRB policies or standard operating procedures of 207 Medical School, Industry and Non-medical School IRBs were examined on-line to determine if they incorporated specific reference to the return of results to participants at the conclusion of the research. RESULTS: The majority of IRBs had no available policy regarding the return of research results to participants [56% (n = 116)]. A further third 136.3% (n = 75)] had policies that were defined as vague or that only indirectly mentioned the return of results. Medical School IRBs were more likely to have a policy than Industry or Non-medical University IRBs, respectively (odds ratio, 4.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.84 to 11.66 and odds ratio, 3.03; 95 % confidence interval, 1.75 to 5.25). Few provided any guidance as to the process of return of results. Of the IRBs that had a research results policy, 54.9% (n = 50) specifically addressed genetic research. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate a marked lack of uniformity in IRB policy regarding the return of study results with over half providing no guidance.
Authors: Christopher A Cassa; Sarah K Savage; Patrick L Taylor; Robert C Green; Amy L McGuire; Kenneth D Mandl Journal: Genome Res Date: 2012-01-06 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Sandeep Kadimpati; Jennifer B McCormick; Yichen Chiu; Ashley B Parker; Aliya Z Iftikhar; Randall P Flick; David O Warner Journal: AJOB Empir Bioeth Date: 2014-01-01
Authors: Christian M Simon; Janet K Williams; Laura Shinkunas; Debra Brandt; Sandra Daack-Hirsch; Martha Driessnack Journal: J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 1.742
Authors: Conrad V Fernandez; Kathleen Ruccione; Robert J Wells; Jay B Long; Wendy Pelletier; Mary C Hooke; Rebecca D Pentz; Robert B Noll; Justin N Baker; Maura O'Leary; Gregory Reaman; Peter C Adamson; Steven Joffe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-10-29 Impact factor: 44.544