Public Comments on the Proposed Common Rule Mandate for Single-IRB Review of Multisite Research.


Journal

Ethics & human research
ISSN: 2578-2363
Titre abrégé: Ethics Hum Res
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101738005

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Jan 2019
Historique:
entrez: 13 2 2019
pubmed: 13 2 2019
medline: 3 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We reviewed the public comments submitted in response to the Department of Health and Human Services' (DHHS's) original and revised proposal for mandated single-IRB review of federally funded multisite research to see who responded to the proposed mandate and to determine what they said and how the agency addressed the public comments in its revised proposal. Our analysis indicates that support for the single-IRB mandate was limited. The most common argument against the proposed mandate came from those concerned with the loss of site-specific institutional review board (IRB) review of the protocol for a multisite study to address issues relevant to local context. Concerns were also raised that the single-IRB approach would replace one inefficient system (that entails, for example, multiple reviews of a single study) with another potentially inefficient system (involving the negotiation and management of multiple interinstitutional agreements). Empirical research about the implementation of DHHS's final rule-and the separate rule of the National Institutes of Health-mandating single-IRB review is needed to determine whether the single-IRB model achieves the stated goals.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30744312
doi: 10.1002/eahr.500002
pmc: PMC6925583
mid: NIHMS1063290
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

15-21

Subventions

Organisme : NHGRI NIH HHS
ID : R01 HG008558
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2019 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.

Références

Clin Trials. 2013 Aug;10(4):560-7
pubmed: 23666951
IRB. 2005 May-Jun;27(3):1-7
pubmed: 16021793
Clin Transl Sci. 2015 Feb;8(1):57-66
pubmed: 25196592
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 10;373(24):2296-9
pubmed: 26536071
N Engl J Med. 2015 Dec 10;373(24):2293-6
pubmed: 26509903
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011 Mar;6(1):3-19
pubmed: 21460582
IRB. 2010 May-Jun;32(3):1-6
pubmed: 20590050
Acad Med. 2018 Aug;93(8):1157-1161
pubmed: 29517531
Am J Bioeth. 2009 Nov;9(11):60-2
pubmed: 19882464
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2017 Dec;8:114-121
pubmed: 29546249
Fed Regist. ;82(12):7149-274
pubmed: 28106360
Clin Transl Sci. 2013 Jun;6(3):176-8
pubmed: 23751020
Acad Med. 2015 Mar;90(3):321-3
pubmed: 25406606
JAMA. 2003 Jul 16;290(3):360-6
pubmed: 12865377
N Engl J Med. 2016 Mar 31;374(13):1205-7
pubmed: 27028910

Auteurs

Holly A Taylor (HA)

Associate professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a member of the core faculty at Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics.

Stephan Ehrhardt (S)

Associate professor in the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Ann-Margret Ervin (AM)

Assistant scientist in the Department of Epidemiology at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH