Literature DB >> 19996050

Effects of local institutional review board review on participation in national practice-based research network studies.

Stacia A Finch1, Shari L Barkin, Richard C Wasserman, Niramol Dhepyasuwan, Eric J Slora, Robert D Sege.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To describe the process and outcomes of local institutional review board (IRB) review for 2 Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) studies.
DESIGN: Pediatric Research in Office Settings conducted 2 national studies concerning sensitive topics: (1) Child Abuse Recognition Experience Study (CARES), an observational study of physician decision making, and (2) Safety Check, a violence prevention intervention trial. Institutional review board approval was secured by investigators' sites, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and practices with local IRBs. Practices were queried about IRB rules at PROS enrollment and study recruitment.
SETTING: Pediatric Research in Office Settings practices in 29 states. PARTICIPANTS: Eighty-eight PROS practices (75 IRBs). Main Exposure Local IRB presence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Local IRB presence, level of PROS assistance, IRB process, study participation, data collection completion, and minority enrollment.
RESULTS: Practices requiring additional local IRB approval agreed to participate less than those that did not (CARES: 33% vs 52%; Safety Check: 41% vs 56%). Of the 88 practices requiring local IRB approval, 55 received approval, with nearly 50% needing active PROS help, many requiring consent changes (eg, contact name additions, local IRB approval stamps), and 87% beginning data collection. Median days to obtain approval were 81 (CARES) and 109 (Safety Check). Practices requiring local IRB approval were less likely to complete data collection but more likely to enroll minority patients.
CONCLUSIONS: Local IRB review was associated with lower participation rates, substantial effort navigating the process (with approval universally granted without substantive changes), and data collection delays. When considering future reforms, the national human subject protections system should consider the potential redundancy and effect on generalizability, particularly regarding enrollment of poor urban children, related to local IRB review.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19996050      PMCID: PMC4452200          DOI: 10.1001/archpediatrics.2009.206

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med        ISSN: 1072-4710


  9 in total

Review 1.  Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way?

Authors:  Jennifer L Gold; Carolyn S Dewa
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 2.  The IRB challenge for practice-based research: strategies of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN).

Authors:  Deborah G Graham; Mindy S Spano; Brian Manning
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.657

3.  Practice-based research network solutions to methodological challenges encountered in a national, prospective cohort study of mothers and newborns.

Authors:  Stacia A Finch; Christina Lalama; Cathie Spino; Heidi C Schwartz; Richard C Wasserman; Marie C McCormick; Henry H Bernstein
Journal:  Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 3.980

4.  Patient visits to a national practice-based research network: comparing pediatric research in office settings with the National Ambulatory Medical Care Survey.

Authors:  Eric J Slora; Kathleen A Thoma; Richard C Wasserman; Steven E Pedlow; Alison B Bocian
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-07-10       Impact factor: 7.124

5.  Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study.

Authors:  Kathleen Dziak; Roger Anderson; Mary Ann Sevick; Carol S Weisman; Douglas W Levine; Sarah Hudson Scholle
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  A survey of IRB process in 68 U.S. hospitals.

Authors:  Elaine Larson; Tiffany Bratts; Jack Zwanziger; Patricia Stone
Journal:  J Nurs Scholarsh       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 3.176

7.  Variation in standards of research compensation and child assent practices: a comparison of 69 institutional review board-approved informed permission and assent forms for 3 multicenter pediatric clinical trials.

Authors:  Michael B Kimberly; K Sarah Hoehn; Chris Feudtner; Robert M Nelson; Mark Schreiner
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 7.124

8.  From suspicion of physical child abuse to reporting: primary care clinician decision-making.

Authors:  Emalee G Flaherty; Robert D Sege; John Griffith; Lori Lyn Price; Richard Wasserman; Eric Slora; Niramol Dhepyasuwan; Donna Harris; David Norton; Mary Lu Angelilli; Dianna Abney; Helen J Binns
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2008-08-01       Impact factor: 7.124

9.  Is office-based counseling about media use, timeouts, and firearm storage effective? Results from a cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

Authors:  Shari L Barkin; Stacia A Finch; Edward H Ip; Benjamin Scheindlin; Joseph A Craig; Jennifer Steffes; Victoria Weiley; Eric Slora; David Altman; Richard C Wasserman
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 7.124

  9 in total
  10 in total

1.  Ethics and privacy issues of a practice-based surveillance system: need for a national-level institutional research ethics board and consent standards.

Authors:  Jyoti A Kotecha; Donna Manca; Anita Lambert-Lanning; Karim Keshavjee; Neil Drummond; Marshall Godwin; Michelle Greiver; Wayne Putnam; Marie-Thérèse Lussier; Richard Birtwhistle
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 2.  The APA and the rise of pediatric generalist network research.

Authors:  Richard Wasserman; Janet R Serwint; Nathan Kuppermann; Rajendu Srivastava; Benard Dreyer
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2011-02-01       Impact factor: 3.107

Review 3.  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

4.  The silent majority: who speaks at IRB meetings?

Authors:  Philip J Candilis; Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum; Robert M Arnold; William Gardner; Suzanne Myers; Albert J Grudzinskas; Lorna J Simon
Journal:  IRB       Date:  2012 Jul-Aug

5.  Practice-Based Research Networks Ceding to a Single Institutional Review Board: A Report From the INSTTEPP Trial and Meta-LARC Consortium.

Authors:  Jeanette M Daly; Tabria Weiner Harrod; Kate Judge; LeAnn C Michaels; Barcey T Levy; David L Hahn; Lyle J Fagnan; Donald E Nease
Journal:  J Patient Cent Res Rev       Date:  2018-10-29

6.  Analysis of informed consent document utilization in a minimal-risk genetic study.

Authors:  Karl Desch; Jun Li; Scott Kim; Naomi Laventhal; Kristen Metzger; David Siemieniak; David Ginsburg
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2011-09-06       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  National Randomized Controlled Trial of Virtual House Calls for People with Parkinson's Disease: Interest and Barriers.

Authors:  E Ray Dorsey; Meredith A Achey; Christopher A Beck; Denise B Beran; Kevin M Biglan; Cynthia M Boyd; Peter N Schmidt; Richard Simone; Allison W Willis; Nicholas B Galifianakis; Maya Katz; Caroline M Tanner; Kristen Dodenhoff; Nathan Ziman; Jason Aldred; Julie Carter; Joohi Jimenez-Shahed; Christine Hunter; Meredith Spindler; Zoltan Mari; John C Morgan; Dedi McLane; Patrick Hickey; Lisa Gauger; Irene Hegeman Richard; Michael T Bull; Nicte I Mejia; Grace Bwala; Martha Nance; Ludy Shih; Lauren Anderson; Carlos Singer; Cindy Zadikoff; Natalia Okon; Andrew Feigin; Jean Ayan; Christina Vaughan; Rajesh Pahwa; Jessica Cooper; Sydney Webb; Rohit Dhall; Anhar Hassan; Delana Weis; Steven DeMello; Sara S Riggare; Paul Wicks; Joseph Smith; H Tait Keenan; Ryan Korn; Heidi Schwarz; Saloni Sharma; E Anna Stevenson; William Zhu
Journal:  Telemed J E Health       Date:  2016-02-17       Impact factor: 3.536

8.  Institutional review board barriers and solutions encountered in the Collaboration Among Pharmacists and Physicians to Improve Outcomes Now Study: a national multicenter practice-based implementation trial.

Authors:  Eric J Maclaughlin; Gail Ardery; Eric A Jackson; Timothy J Ives; Rodney B Young; David S Fike; Barry L Carter
Journal:  Pharmacotherapy       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 4.705

9.  The institutional review board is an impediment to human research: the result is more animal-based research.

Authors:  Mark J Rice
Journal:  Philos Ethics Humanit Med       Date:  2011-06-07       Impact factor: 2.464

10.  Assessing the challenges of multi-scope clinical research sites: an example from NIH HIV/AIDS clinical trials networks.

Authors:  Scott R Rosas; Marie T Cope; Christie Villa; Mahnaz Motevalli; Jill Utech; Jeffrey T Schouten
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2013-11-13       Impact factor: 2.431

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.