Literature DB >> 31967411

When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.

Robert Klitzman1, Paul S Appelbaum2, Alexandra Murray3, Ekaterina Pivovarova4, Deborah F Stiles5, Charles W Lidz6.   

Abstract

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function.
© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Common Rule; IRBs; human subjects research; multisite studies; research ethics; single IRBs

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31967411      PMCID: PMC9078204          DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ethics Hum Res        ISSN: 2578-2355


  8 in total

1.  How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum; Robert Arnold; Philip Candilis; William Gardner; Suzanne Myers; Lorna Simon
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  Federal Policy for the Protection of Human Subjects. Final rule.

Authors: 
Journal:  Fed Regist       Date:  2017-01-19

3.  Measuring bias in self-reported data.

Authors:  Robert Rosenman; Vidhura Tennekoon; Laura G Hill
Journal:  Int J Behav Healthc Res       Date:  2011-10

4.  How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest: Findings From a National Interview Study.

Authors:  Ekaterina Pivovarova; Robert L Klitzman; Alexandra Murray; Deborah F Stiles; Paul S Appelbaum; Charles W Lidz
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 6.893

Review 5.  Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Ekaterina Pivovarova; Paul Appelbaum; Deborah F Stiles; Alexandra Murray; Robert L Klitzman
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2018-10-04

6.  Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman; Ekaterina Pivovarova; Alexandra Murray; Paul S Appelbaum; Deborah F Stiles; Charles W Lidz
Journal:  Ethics Hum Res       Date:  2019-01

7.  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

Review 8.  Information bias in health research: definition, pitfalls, and adjustment methods.

Authors:  Alaa Althubaiti
Journal:  J Multidiscip Healthc       Date:  2016-05-04
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.