Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards.
Ethics review
Scientific Review Committee
operational feasibility
quantitative and qualitative methods
scientific quality
Journal
Journal of clinical and translational science
ISSN: 2059-8661
Titre abrégé: J Clin Transl Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101689953
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Apr 2020
Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
28
08
2019
revised:
14
11
2019
accepted:
17
11
2019
entrez:
22
4
2020
pubmed:
22
4
2020
medline:
22
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32313701
doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.439
pmc: PMC7159811
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
115-124Subventions
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002649
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002548
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002529
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002369
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001876
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002553
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002373
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001417
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR001881
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCATS NIH HHS
ID : UL1 TR002544
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Clin Transl Sci. 2015 Dec;8(6):623-31
pubmed: 26184433
Fed Regist. ;82(12):7149-274
pubmed: 28106360
Bull Med Ethics. 2002 Oct;(182):17-23
pubmed: 14983848
Health Serv Res. 2007 Aug;42(4):1758-72
pubmed: 17286625