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


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 2020
Historique:
entrez: 23 1 2020
pubmed: 23 1 2020
medline: 3 11 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31967411
doi: 10.1002/eahr.500041
pmc: PMC9078204
mid: NIHMS1751130
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

36-40

Subventions

Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : R01 GM113640
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIGMS NIH HHS
ID : 5R01GM113640-03
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.

Références

Acad Med. 2012 Jul;87(7):969-74
pubmed: 22622205
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 30;10(7):e0133639
pubmed: 26225553
Fed Regist. ;82(12):7149-274
pubmed: 28106360
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2016 May 04;9:211-7
pubmed: 27217764
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):164-172
pubmed: 30285561
Int J Behav Healthc Res. 2011 Oct;2(4):320-332
pubmed: 25383095
Ethics Hum Res. 2019 Jan;41(1):22-31
pubmed: 30744311
Acad Med. 2019 Oct;94(10):1554-1560
pubmed: 30998578

Auteurs

Robert Klitzman (R)

Professor of psychiatry and the director of the Masters of Science in Bioethics Program at Columbia University.

Paul S Appelbaum (PS)

Elizabeth K. Dollard professor of psychiatry, medicine and law and the director of the Center for Law, Ethics and Psychiatry at Columbia University.

Alexandra Murray (A)

Research coordinator at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Ekaterina Pivovarova (E)

Assistant professor of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

Deborah F Stiles (DF)

Chief operating officer and vice president for research operations and policy in the Office of Executive Vice President for Research at Columbia University.

Charles W Lidz (CW)

Research professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School.

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