Dataset Information

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

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.

SUBMITTER: Klitzman R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9078204 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Klitzman Robert R Appelbaum Paul S PS Murray Alexandra A Pivovarova Ekaterina E Stiles Deborah F DF Lidz Charles W CW

Ethics & human research 20200101 1

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 ...[more]

PMID: 31967411

Similar Datasets

Project description:The rising incidence of infection among youth in sub-Saharan Africa makes HIV-related research among younger people a top priority. There remains, however, a lack of consistent and unambiguous ethical principles and guidance for researchers wishing to conduct HIV studies with adolescents. The overarching aim of our research was to better understand youths' experiences with HIV studies. The present study explored four questions: (1) What strategies are effective for recruiting youth for HIV studies? (2) What motivates youth to participate in these studies? (3) How do study participants perceive HIV testing within the context of a research study? (4) What do participants understand about the risks of study participation? These data are essential to inform guidelines for the responsible conduct of research with young people. We interviewed 82 adolescents (aged 15-19) in Kenya taking part in a study examining ethical issues pertaining to their involvement in HIV-related research. Pursuant to our research questions, we found that direct study recruitment combined with encouragement from female relatives was the greatest facilitator to study enrolment among young people. Most young participants expressed that they were motivated to join the study in order to (1) learn their HIV status (n = 49) and (2) receive HIV-related education (n = 26), even though both are already free and widely available. Participants largely preferred testing in a place they deemed "private," although both the health clinic and home were regarded by adolescents as locations with greater privacy. Adolescents largely did not accurately perceive risks of the study two months after baseline, although they could remember the benefits with great clarity. This work can inform researchers, policymakers, and ethics review committees on approaches to maximize efficiency in recruitment and data collection, and to enhance understanding of risks and benefits in HIV-related research among adolescents. While further research is needed, these data may be used by others conducting HIV research in this region to improve recruitment strategies and more effectively engage and appeal to young people.

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.MethodsI conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).ResultsInterviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are "merely following the regulations," and their process is "open," impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and "the community values," and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.ConclusionsThis study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs--to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets