Principal investigator views of the IRB system

Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study

Numerous ethical, legal, and social issues arise with biological sample sharing. The study explored the perspectives of genetic and genomic researchers on the sharing of biological samples in international collaborative research. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers. Participants expressed positive attitudes towards biobanking and appreciated the benefits of cross-border sharing of biological samples but noted that this practice had adversely affected local capacity building efforts. There was limited understanding of the ethical and regulatory frameworks governing sample sharing. Researchers emphasized the importance of respecting cultural values in biobanking research. Issues concerning poor governance and inequitable benefit sharing were also raised. There is a need for fair and equitable international collaborations where all researchers are treated with respect and as equal partners.

"We measure what we can measure": Struggles in defining and evaluating institutional review board quality

There has been a persistent lack of clarity regarding how to define and measure the quality of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). To address this challenge, we interviewed 43 individuals designated as IRB Stakeholders, including leaders in research ethics oversight, policymakers, investigators, research sponsors, and patient advocates, about their views regarding key features of IRB quality and how those features could be measured. We also interviewed 20 U.S. IRB directors (or individuals in similar roles) to learn how their institutions currently define and measure IRB quality and to assess satisfaction with those approaches. We analyzed the interviews, all of which were conducted in 2018, using a modified grounded theory approach. Individuals in the Stakeholder group struggled both to define IRB quality and identify appropriate measures. Those in the Director group gave less abstract and more bounded accounts, offering definitions of quality based on what their institutions currently measure. In identifying core definitional elements of IRB quality, both groups discussed efficiency, compliance, board and staff qualifications, and research facilitation. However, in an important omission by Directors, only Stakeholders named participant protection and thoughtful review as essential elements of IRB quality, despite the centrality of these factors to the very purpose of IRBs. Directors in our sample were largely satisfied with their institutions' current approaches to quality measurement, which included audits of internal processes and regulatory compliance, efficiency tracking, and feedback from board members and researchers. In addition to fleshing out what it means for IRB discretion to be exercised reasonably, adopting proposed metrics related to participant protection outcomes could help IRBs refocus on their core mission and prevent them from falling further into the broader trend of 'audit culture.'

Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research

While research on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) has been conducted on issues ranging from quality, process, and effectiveness, gaps remain. Social science researchers have raised issues regarding decisions by IRBs applied to the social sciences based on biomedical research. To date, little is known about the experience of social scientists in criminology and criminal justice with IRBs and this research seeks to fill this gap. An online survey, including open- and closed-ended questions drawn from the validated IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool, was administered to members of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and the American Society of Criminology about their experiences with IRBs. Results revealed that researchers report experiencing challenges with their IRBs including timeline delays of their research, bias against their research, and decisions that protect legal liability rather than human subjects ethics. Recommendations for improving IRB reviews of protocols and challenges unique to criminology and criminal justice are discussed.

Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study

There is limited literature on the opinions and perspectives of researchers on the ethical issues in biobank research in South Africa. This study aimed to explore researchers' perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in South Africa. An online survey was conducted among researchers and scientists at Stellenbosch University and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. The majority of researchers opined that broad consent is appropriate for biobank research. However, there was no consensus on the necessity for re-consent. Researchers were also in agreement that issues concerning informed consent and future use of samples require thorough discussions during the ethical review process. Overall, the attitude of researchers on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research was positive and ethically informed.

Of Straws, Camels, Research Regulation, and IRBs

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have become beleaguered by a growth in responsibilities related to research oversight in the past several decades. A number of regulatory bodies have appeared in response to these novel and complex responsibilities, seeking to respond to among other issues, conflicts of interest, new technologies, and the potential misuse of research findings. Here, we examine several examples of these novel regulatory bodies as well as a number of concerns related to them that have been largely unacknowledged. Evidence suggests that there can be disharmony and conflicts between these regulatory bodies and IRBs, a lack of clarity with regard to their roles and responsibilities, as well as shortcomings within these entities that, at times, look a lot like the worries that have long been raised in relation to IRBs. We offer a brief discussion of how some of these concerns might be ameliorated, either through a significant restructuring of the system of research oversight, or perhaps through smaller changes to these regulatory bodies.

The Real-Time IRB: A Collaborative Innovation to Decrease IRB Review Time

Lengthy review times for institutional review boards (IRBs) are a well-known barrier to research. In response to numerous calls to reduce review times, we devised "Real-Time IRB," a process that drastically reduces IRB review time. In this, investigators and study staff attend the IRB meeting and make changes to the protocol while the IRB continues its meeting, so that final approval can be issued at the meeting. This achieved an overall reduction in time from submission to the IRB to final approval of 40%. While this process is time and resource intensive, and cannot address all delays in research, it shows great promise for increasing the pace by which research is translated to patient care.

Person-oriented research ethics: integrating relational and everyday ethics in research

Research ethics is often understood by researchers primarily through the regulatory framework reflected in the research ethics review process. This regulatory understanding does not encompass the range of ethical considerations in research, notably those associated with the relational and everyday aspects of human subject research. In order to support researchers in their effort to adopt a broader lens, this article presents a "person-oriented research ethics" approach. Five practical guideposts of person-oriented research ethics are identified, as follows: (1) respect for holistic personhood; (2) acknowledgement of lived world; (3) individualization; (4) focus on researcher-participant relationships; and (5) empowerment in decision-making. These guideposts are defined and illustrated with respect to different aspects of the research process (e.g., research design, recruitment, data collection). The person-oriented research ethics approach provides a toolkit to individual researchers, research groups, and research institutions in both biomedical and social science research wishing to expand their commitment to ethics in research.

Seeking Ways to Inform the Uninformed: Improving the Informed Consent Process in Online Social Science Research

Participants often do not read consent forms in social science research. This is not surprising, especially for online studies, given they do not typically offer greater risk than what is encountered in daily life. However, if no one is reading, are participants really informed? This study used previous research to craft experimentally manipulated consent forms utilizing different visual presentations (e.g., greater use of line spacing, bullets, bolding, diagrams). Participants ( n = 547) were randomly exposed to one of seven form variations. Results found no significant differences between forms in reading or comprehension. Open-ended questions asked participants why they do not read consent forms and what would influence them to read the forms. Participants most frequently stated forms need to be shorter, and important information needs to be highlighted. We suggest improvements to informed consent forms, including removing much of the information that is constant across forms, and only including unique aspects of studies.

Justification and authority in institutional review board decision letters

While ethnographic study has described the discussions that occur during human subjects research ethics review, investigators have minimal access to the interactions of ethics oversight committees. They instead receive letters stipulating changes to their proposed studies. Ethics committee letters are central to the practice of research ethics: they change the nature of research, alter the knowledge it produces, and in doing so construct what ethical research is and how it is pursued. However, these letters have rarely been objects of analysis. Accordingly, we conducted a qualitative analysis of letters written by American institutional review boards (IRBs) overseeing biomedical and health behavioral research. We sought to clarify how IRBs exercise their authority by assessing the frequency with which they provided reasons for their stipulations as well as the nature of these reasons. We found that IRBs frequently do not justify their stipulations; rather, they often leave ethical or regulatory concerns implicit or frame their comments as boilerplate language replacements, procedural instructions, or demands for missing information. When they do provide justifications, their rationales exhibit substantial variability in explicitness and clarity. These rhetorical tendencies indicate that the authority of IRBs is grounded primarily in their role as bureaucratic gatekeepers. We conclude by suggesting that greater attention to justification could help shift the basis of the IRB-researcher relationship from compliance to mutual accountability.

Ethics Regulation in Social Computing Research: Examining the Role of Institutional Review Boards

The parallel rise of pervasive data collection platforms and computational methods for collecting, analyzing, and drawing inferences from large quantities of user data has advanced social computing research, investigating digital traces to understand mediated behaviors of individuals, groups, and societies. At the same time, methods employed to access these data have raised questions about ethical research practices. This article provides insights into U.S. institutional review boards' (IRBs) attitudes and practices regulating social computing research. Through descriptive and inferential analysis of survey data from staff at 59 IRBs at research universities, we examine how IRBs evaluate the growing variety of studies using pervasive digital data. Findings unpack the difficulties IRB staff face evaluating increasingly technical research proposals while highlighting the belief in their ability to surmount these difficulties. They also indicate a lack of consensus among IRB staff about what should be reviewed and a willingness to work closely with researchers.

IRB Process Improvements: A Machine Learning Analysis

OBJECTIVE

Clinical research involving humans is critically important, but it is a lengthy and expensive process. Most studies require institutional review board (IRB) approval. Our objective is to identify predictors of delays or accelerations in the IRB review process and apply this knowledge to inform process change in an effort to improve IRB efficiency, transparency, consistency and communication.

METHODS

We analyzed timelines of protocol submissions to determine protocol or IRB characteristics associated with different processing times. Our evaluation included single variable analysis to identify significant predictors of IRB processing time and machine learning methods to predict processing times through the IRB review system. Based on initial identified predictors, changes to IRB workflow and staffing procedures were instituted and we repeated our analysis.

RESULTS

Our analysis identified several predictors of delays in the IRB review process including type of IRB review to be conducted, whether a protocol falls under Veteran's Administration purview and specific staff in charge of a protocol's review.

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified several predictors of delays in IRB protocol review processing times using statistical and machine learning methods. Application of this knowledge to process improvement efforts in two IRBs has led to increased efficiency in protocol review. The workflow and system enhancements that are being made support our four-part goal of improving IRB efficiency, consistency, transparency, and communication.

Barriers to Effective Deliberation in Clinical Research Oversight

Ethical oversight of clinical research is one of the primary means of ensuring that human subjects are protected from the natural bias of researchers and research institutions in favor of experimentation. At a minimum, effective oversight should ensure that risks are minimized and reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits, protect vulnerable subjects from potential coercion or undue influence, ensure full and informed consent, and promote the equitable distribution of the risks and benefits of research. Because these assessments often involve value judgments for which there are no agreed-upon objective standards, we rely on deliberative procedures thought to have the greatest likelihood of producing the right or best outcomes. Concerns about the potential for improperly functioning IRBs to waste scarce human and institutional resources and impede biomedical progress have motivated a surge in empirical research assessing their procedures and outcomes. Yet within this literature, there has been minimal attention paid to the social scientific evidence regarding how individuals and deliberating groups make decisions, nor how those data might inform IRB practice. This essay seeks to fill that gap, locating recent empirical data on IRB composition and process within the context of data regarding what I call "deliberative pathologies," or instances when deliberation fails to live up to one or more aspect of the deliberative ideal because of systematic biases in the ways participants interact. The paper goes on to make evidence-based recommendations to reduce the vulnerability of IRB deliberations to the kinds of pathologies discussed and indicate directions for future research.

A Study of Assessing Errors and Completeness of Research Application Forms Submitted to Instituitional Ethics Committee (IEC) of a Tertiary Care Hospital

INTRODUCTION

Application form of research work is an essential requirement which is required to be submitted along with the research proposal to the Ethics Committee (EC).

AIM

To check the completeness and to find the errors in application forms submitted to the EC of a tertiary care hospital.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The application forms of research projects submitted to the Institutional Review Board (IRB), Government Medical College, Bhavnagar, Gujarat, India from January 2014 to June 2015 were analysed for completeness and errors, with respect to the following - type of study, information about study investigators, sample size, study participants, title of the studies, signatures of all investigators, regulatory approval, recruitment procedure, compensation to study participants, informed consent process, information about sponsor, declaration of conflict of interest, plans for storage and maintenance of data, patient information sheet, informed consent forms and study related documents.

RESULTS

Total 100 application forms were analysed. Among them, 98 were academic and 2 were industrial studies. Majority of academic studies were of basic science type. In 63.26% studies, type of study was not mentioned in title. Age group of subjects was not mentioned in 8.16% application forms. In 34.6% informed consent, benefits of the study were not mentioned. Signature of investigators/co-investigators/Head of the Department was missing in 3.06% cases.

CONCLUSION

Our study recommends that the efficiency and speed of review will increase if investigator will increase vigilance regarding filling of application forms. Regular meetings will be helpful to solve the problems related to content of application forms. The uniformity in functioning of EC can be achieved if common application form for all ECs is there.

Can an ethics officer role reduce delays in research ethics approval? A mixed-method evaluation of an improvement project

OBJECTIVE

Frustration continues to be directed at delays in gaining approvals for undertaking health research in the UK. We aimed to evaluate the impact of an ethics officer intervention on rates of favourable opinions (approval) and provisional opinions (requiring revision and resubmission) and on the time taken to reach a final opinion by research ethics committees (RECs), to characterise how the role operated in practice, and to investigate applicants' views.

DESIGN

Mixed-method study involving (i) a 2-group, non-randomised before-and-after intervention study of RECs assigned an ethics officer and a matched comparator group; (ii) a process evaluation involving a survey of applicants and documentary analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

6 RECs and 3 associated ethics officers; 18 comparator RECs; REC applicants.

RESULTS

Rates of provisional and favourable opinions between ethics officer and comparator RECs did not show a statistically significant effect of the intervention (logistic regression, p=0.26 for favourable opinions and p=0.31 for provisional opinions). Mean time to reach a decision showed a non-significant reduction (ANOVA, p=0.22) from 33.3 to 32.0 days in the ethics officer RECs compared with the comparator RECs (32.6 to 32.9 days). The survey (30% response rate) indicated applicant satisfaction and also suggested that ethics officer support might be more useful before submission. Ethics officers were successful in identifying many issues with applications, but the intervention did not function exactly as designed: in 31% of applicants, no contact between the applicants and the ethics officer took place before REC review.

LIMITATIONS

This study was a non-randomised comparison cohort study. Some data were missing.

CONCLUSIONS

An ethics officer intervention, as designed and implemented in this study, did not increase the proportion of applications to RECs that were approved on first review and did not reduce the time to a committee decision.

Informed Consent-Uninformed Participants: Shortcomings of Online Social Science Consent Forms and Recommendations for Improvement

As informed consent forms continue to lengthen, are these lengthening forms helping to create better informed participants? The aim of this research was to determine whether the length of consent forms affected reading frequency and comprehension, and to provide recommendations on how to improve consent forms in the social sciences so they are more likely to be read. A quasi-experiment was conducted using actual consent forms at two liberal arts schools, one requiring a long form (463 words, n = 73) and one requiring a shorter form (236 words, n = 57). Participants exposed to the shorter form reported fully reading, or at least skimming the form more frequently than those exposed to the longer form. Those exposed to the shorter form also comprehended more of the form's information. The majority of participants indicated consent forms need to be shortened if researchers want future participants to be more likely to read these forms' contents. Additional recommendations are discussed.

Institutional Review Boards: Purpose and Challenges

Institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees provide a core protection for human research participants through advance and periodic independent review of the ethical acceptability of proposals for human research. IRBs were codified in US regulation just over three decades ago and are widely required by law or regulation in jurisdictions globally. Since the inception of IRBs, the research landscape has grown and evolved, as has the system of IRB review and oversight. Evidence of inconsistencies in IRB review and in application of federal regulations has fueled dissatisfaction with the IRB system. Some complain that IRB review is time-consuming and burdensome without clear evidence of effectiveness at protecting human subjects. Multiple proposals have been offered to reform or update the current IRB system, and many alternative models are currently being tried. Current focus on centralizing and sharing reviews requires more attention and evidence. Proposed changes to the US federal regulations may bring more changes. Data and resourcefulness are needed to further develop and test review and oversight models that provide adequate and respectful protections of participant rights and welfare and that are appropriate, efficient, and adaptable for current and future research.

Analysis of research ethics board approval times in an academic department of medicine

As part of an ongoing effort to better understand barriers to academic research, we reviewed and analyzed the process of research ethics applications, focusing on ethics approval time, within the Department of Medicine from 2006 to 2011. A total of 1,268 applications for approval to use human subjects in research were included in our analysis. Three variables, risk category (minimal vs. non-minimal risk), type of funding, and year of submission, were statistically significant for prediction of ethics approval time, with risk status being the most important of these. The covariate-adjusted mean time for approval for minimal risk studies (35.7 days) was less than half that of non-minimal risk protocols (76.5 days). Studies funded through a for-profit sponsor had significantly longer approval times than those funded through other means but were also predominantly (87%) non-minimal risk protocols. Further investigations of the reasons underlying the observed differences are needed to determine whether improved training for research ethics board (REB) members and/or greater dialogue with investigators may reduce the lengthy approval times associated with non-minimal risk protocols.

Awareness of Federal Regulatory Mechanisms Relevant to Community-Engaged Research: Survey of Health Disparities-Oriented NIH-Funded Investigators

Few studies or investigators involved in community-engaged research or community-based participatory research have examined awareness and adoption of federal regulatory mechanisms. We conducted a survey of investigators affiliated with the 10 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Centers for Population Health and Health Disparities. A questionnaire designed to capture experience with the conduct and oversight of community-engaged research, and awareness of pertinent regulatory mechanisms, including Federalwide Assurances (FWAs), Individual Investigator Agreements (IIAs), and Institutional Review Board Authorization Agreements (IAAs), was completed by 101 respondents (68% response rate). Although most were aware of FWAs, only a minority of those surveyed reported knowledge of IAAs and IIAs and even fewer had used them in their research with community partners. Implications for future training and oversight are discussed.

A domain analysis model for eIRB systems: addressing the weak link in clinical research informatics

Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are a critical component of clinical research and can become a significant bottleneck due to the dramatic increase, in both volume and complexity of clinical research. Despite the interest in developing clinical research informatics (CRI) systems and supporting data standards to increase clinical research efficiency and interoperability, informatics research in the IRB domain has not attracted much attention in the scientific community. The lack of standardized and structured application forms across different IRBs causes inefficient and inconsistent proposal reviews and cumbersome workflows. These issues are even more prominent in multi-institutional clinical research that is rapidly becoming the norm. This paper proposes and evaluates a domain analysis model for electronic IRB (eIRB) systems, paving the way for streamlined clinical research workflow via integration with other CRI systems and improved IRB application throughput via computer-assisted decision support.

Is your ethics committee efficient? Using "IRB Metrics" as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand

Tensions between researchers and ethics committees have been reported in several institutions. Some reports suggest researchers lack confidence in the quality of institutional review board (IRB) reviews, and that emphasis on strict procedural compliance and ethical issues raised by the IRB might unintentionally lead to delays in correspondence between researchers and ethics committees, and/or even encourage prevarication/equivocation, if researchers perceive committee concerns and criticisms unjust. This study systematically analyzed the efficiency of different IRB functions, and the relationship between efficiency and perceived quality of the decision-making process. The major purposes of this study were thus (1) to use the IRB Metrics developed by the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand (FTM-EC) to assess the operational efficiency and perceived effectiveness of its ethics committees, and (2) to determine ethical issues that may cause the duration of approval process to be above the target limit of 60 days. Based on a literature review of definitions and methods used and proposed for use, in assessing aspects of IRB quality, an “IRB Metrics” was developed to assess IRB processes using a structure-process-outcome measurement model. To observe trends in the indicators evaluated, data related to all protocols submitted to the two panels of the FTM-EC (clinical and non-clinical), between January 2010–September 2013, were extracted and analyzed. Quantitative information based on IRB Metrics structure-process-outcome illuminates different areas for internal-process improvement. Ethical issues raised with researchers by the IRB, which were associated with the duration of the approval process in protocol review, could be considered root causes of tensions between the parties. The assessment of IRB structure-process-outcome thus provides a valuable opportunity to strengthen relationships and reduce conflicts between IRBs and researchers, with positive outcomes for all parties involved in the conduct of human-subject research.

The use of delayed telephone informed consent for observational emergency medicine research is ethical and effective

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to describe the rate of successful consent using an altered (deferred telephone) consent process in emergency department (ED) patients.

METHODS

This study evaluated the consent process employed during a prospective, multicenter, observational study of outcomes in anticoagulated patients with blunt head trauma. The study was approved by the institutional review boards (IRBs) at all participating centers. Patients were not informed of the study during their enrollment at their index ED visit. Patient names, clinical findings, and contact information were collected at the time of initial ED visits. The patients or their legally designated surrogates were contacted by telephone at least 14 days after ED discharge, given all the elements of informed consent, and then consented for study participation. Study results are presented with simple descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 506 patients with a mean (±SD) age of 75.8 (±12.2) years including 274 female subjects (54.2%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 49.7% to 58.6%) were enrolled into the study. Patients or their surrogates were successfully contacted by telephone in 501 of 506 cases (99.0%; 95% CI = 97.7% to 99.7%). Consent was obtained in 500 of 501 cases at time of telephone follow-up (99.8%; 95% CI = 98.9% to 100.0%). Surrogates provided consent in 199 cases (39.7%; 95% CI = 35.4% to 44.2%). Median time from ED visit to phone contact was 21 days (interquartile range [IQR] = 17 to 27 days). The median number of phone attempts for successful contact was 1 (IQR = 1 to 2 attempts).

CONCLUSIONS

The authors achieved a very high rate of successful telephone follow-up in this predominantly older ED population. Obtaining consent to participate in a research study using a deferred telephone contact process was effective and well received by both subjects and surrogates. IRBs should consider deferred telephone consent for minimal-risk studies requiring telephone follow-up, as opposed to a consent process requiring written documentation at the time of initial ED visit.

A study to assess completeness of project application forms submitted to Institutional Ethics Committees (IEC) of a tertiary care hospital

OBJECTIVES

To review Ethics Committee (EC) application forms and to find out similarities and differences in content of five ECs forms in India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

THE COMPLETENESS OF EC APPLICATION FORMS WAS ASSESSED ON THE FOLLOWING THEMES: title, study team, sponsor responsibility, scientific aspects, patient safety, regulatory permissions, Informed consent process from 2008-2009. Application forms (available online) of 5 ECs were studied and compared.

RESULTS

A total of 445 application forms were analyzed, 382 were academic, 63 were sponsored. The common deficiencies in academic studies were inappropriate titles (25.13%), lack of budget details (90%). More than 95% studies had not mentioned the method of recruitment. The issue of vulnerability was not marked in more than 50% of studies. Compensation for participation/injury was poorly stated in academic (99%) studies. Among industry sponsored studies, 98% were compliant with regulatory permissions and 41% were CTRI registered. The information pertaining to Informed Consent was mentioned in all forms. Comparative analysis of application forms of 5 ECs showed that the requirements for submission were similar except 1-2 ECs asked for additional information like percentage of time allotted by investigator for studies, GCP training of study team, certification by investigator regarding accuracy of local versions of Informed consent.

CONCLUSION

Our study recommends that increased awareness and vigilance by investigators of academic studies regarding submission of applications to EC will increase efficiency and speed of review process. A common application form for all ECs across India would be an important step to achieve uniformity in functioning of ethics committees.

Ethical aspects in tissue research: thematic analysis of ethical statements to the research ethics committee

BACKGROUND

Many studies have been published about ethics committees and the clarifications requested about the submitted applications. In Finland, ethics committees require a separate statement on ethical aspects of the research in applications to the ethics committee. However, little is known about how researchers consider the ethical aspects of their own studies.

METHODS

The data were collected from all the applications received by the official regional ethics committee in the Hospital District of Northern Savo during 2004-2009 (n = 688). These included a total of 56 studies involving research on tissue other than blood. The statements by the researchers about the ethics about their own research in these applications were analyzed by thematic content analysis under the following themes: recruitment, informed consent, risks and benefits, confidentiality and societal meaning.

RESULTS

The researchers tended to describe recruitment and informed consent process very briefly. Usually these descriptions simply stated who the recruiter was and that written consent would be required. There was little information provided on the recruitment situation and on how the study recruiters would be informed. Although most of the studies were clinical, the possibility was hardly ever discussed that patients could fail to distinguish between care and research.

CONCLUSION

The written guidelines, available on the webpages of the ethics committee, do not seem to be enough to help researchers achieve this goal. In addition to detailed guidelines for researchers, investigators need to be taught to appreciate the ethical aspects in their own studies.

From anonymity to "open doors": IRB responses to tensions with researchers

Background

Tensions between IRBs and researchers in the US and elsewhere have increased, and may affect whether, how, and to what degree researchers comply with ethical guidelines. Yet whether, how, when, and why IRBs respond to these conflicts have received little systematic attention.

Findings

I contacted 60 US IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding), and interviewed leaders from 34 (response rate = 55%) and an additional 12 members and administrators. IRBs often try to respond to tensions with researchers and improve relationships in several ways, but range widely in how, when, and to what degree (e.g., in formal and informal structure, content, and tone of interactions). IRBs varied from open and accessible to more distant and anonymous, and in the amount and type of “PR work” and outreach they do. Many boards seek to improve the quantity, quality, and helpfulness of communication with PIs, but differ in how. IRBs range in meetings from open to closed, and may have clinics and newsletters. Memos can vary in helpfulness and tone (e.g., using “charm”). IRBs range considerably, too, in the degrees to which they seek to educate PIs, showing them the underlying ethical principles. But these efforts take time and resources, and IRBs thus vary in degrees of responses to PI complaints.

Conclusions

This study, the first to explore the mechanisms through which IRBs respond to tensions and interactions with PIs, suggests that these committees seek to respond to conflicts with PIs in varying ways – both formal and informal, involving both the form and content of communications. This study has important implications for future practice, research, and policy, suggesting needs for increased attention to not only what IRBs communicate to PIs, but how (i.e., the tone and the nature of interactions). IRBs can potentially improve relationships with PIs in several ways: using more “open doors” rather than anonymity, engaging in outreach (e.g., through clinics), enhancing the tone as well as content of interactions, educating PIs about the underlying ethics, and helping PIs as much and proactively as possible. Increased awareness of these issues can help IRBs and researchers in the US and elsewhere.

Consent and research governance in biobanks: evidence from focus groups with medical researchers

Much is known about patient attitudes to ethical and legal questions in the context of biobanking, particularly regarding privacy protection and consent. However, little is known about the attitudes of medical researchers who use biobanks for research to these issues. Four focus groups with medical researchers in the UK were conducted in 2010-2011. The study highlights a range of issues associated with the research oversight and consent process (including obtaining ethical approval to use biobank samples and particular concerns for international studies), the benefits and limitations of broad consent and the possibilities of revoking consent. Many of these issues originate in the relatively static consent processes that currently govern the biobanking process. However, it is now possible to develop reliable, dynamic processes using information technology that can resolve many of these ethical and legal concerns. The 'dynamic consent' approach therefore offers the opportunity to fundamentally transform the process of medical research in a manner that addresses the concerns of both patients and medical researchers.

Ethical issues in the translation of social neuroscience: a policy analysis of current guidelines for public dialogue in human research

Social neuroscience and its potential implications create an interesting case study for examining human research ethics policies on the topic of public communication of research. We reviewed mainstream national and international human research ethics guidelines and policies on issues of public communication of research. Our analysis relied on five thematic nets to capture the interactions between research and the public: public understanding, knowledge translation, public participation, social outcomes, and dual use. Coverage of these topics is sparse and inconsistent in mainstream policies and guidelines. We identify three options to address these gaps and analyze their strengths and weaknesses.

A canadian perspective on ethics review and neuroimaging: tensions and solutions

Neuroimaging research has raised ethical concerns such as the management of unexpected findings and the classification and assessment of risks. Research ethics boards (REBs) bear responsibility for the oversight of these challenges but neuroimagers struggle with the practical aspects of ethics review and report that administrative load and inconsistency contribute to eroding confidence and trust in ethics review. Our goal was to discuss and propose strategies for institutional and educational change to improve ethics review. We used an iterative and deliberative workshop-based writing process involving multiple disciplines. We propose recommendations in three tension areas: (1) communication between researchers and REBs; (2) collaboration and sharing of expertise between REBs; and (3) practical considerations and the needs of neuroimagers engaged in the ethics review process. Our recommendations are intended as openings rather than endpoints. Researchers and research ethics governance communities should decide on the future uptake of these recommendations.

A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are integral to the U.S. system of protection of human research participants. Evaluation of IRBs, although difficult, is essential. To date, no systematic review of IRB studies has been published. We conducted a systematic review of empirical studies of U.S. IRBs to determine what is known about the function of IRBs and to identify gaps in knowledge. A structured search in PubMed identified forty-three empirical studies evaluating U.S. IRBs. Studies were included if they reported an empirical investigation of the structure, process, outcomes, effectiveness, or variation of U.S. IRBs. The authors reviewed each study to extract information about study objectives, sample and methods, study results, and conclusions. Empirical evidence collected in forty-three published studies shows that for review of a wide range of types of research, U.S. IRBs differ in their application of the federal regulations, in the time they take to review studies, and in the decisions made. Existing studies show evidence of variation in multicenter review, inconsistent or ambiguous interpretation of the federal regulations, and inefficiencies in review. Despite recognition of a need to evaluate effectiveness of IRB review, no identified published study included an evaluation of IRB effectiveness. Multiple studies evaluating the structure, process, and outcome of IRB review in the United States have documented inconsistencies and inefficiencies. Efforts should be made to address these concerns. Additional research is needed to understand how IRBs accomplish their objectives, what issues they find important, what quality IRB review is, and how effective IRBs are at protecting human research participants.

Attitudes toward genetic research review: results from a survey of human genetics researchers

BACKGROUND

Researchers often relate personal experiences of difficulties and challenges with Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of their human genetic research protocols. However, there have been no studies that document the range and frequency of these concerns among researchers conducting human genetic/genomic studies.

METHODS

An online anonymous survey was used to collect information from human genetic researchers regarding views about IRB review of genetic protocols. Logistic regression was used to test specific hypotheses. Results from the national online survey of 351 human genomic researchers are summarized in this report.

RESULTS

Issues involving considerable discussion with IRBs included reconsent of subjects (51%), protection of participants' personal information (39%) and return of results to participants (34%). Over half of the participants had experienced one or more negative consequences of the IRB review process and approximately 25% had experienced one or more positive consequences. Respondents who had served on an IRB were about 80% more likely to report positive consequences of IRB review than their colleagues who had never served on an IRB (p = 0.03). Survey responses were mixed on the need for reconsent before data sharing and risks related to participant reidentification from genomic data.

CONCLUSION

The results from this study provide important perspectives of researchers regarding genetic research review and show lack of consensus on key research ethics issues in genomic research.

The research ethics committee is not the enemy: oversight of community-based participatory research

Researchers conducting community-based participatory research (CBPR) often complain about research ethics committee (REC) oversight of their research. RECs may contribute to researchers' frustrations by seemingly focusing on form over substance and by failing to communicate effectively with researchers about their mission and their specific concerns. UCSF CBPR researchers presented their views of the UCSF REC's review of its tobacco use study in "It's Like Tuskegee in Reverse: A Case Study of Ethical Tensions in Institutional Review Board Review of Community-Based Participatory Research." This article builds on that case study by providing some perspectives from the REC side, identifying how the researchers and the REC came to be at odds, and seeking to bridge the gap between the CBPR and REC worlds. In particular, the article explores the different perspectives on who are human subjects under the federal regulations in CBPR research, who counts as the community, and the purpose of REC oversight. It offers concrete suggestions for improving the relationship between CBPR researchers and RECs.

Integrating a Federated Healthcare Data Query Platform With Electronic IRB Information Systems

Human subjects are indispensable for clinical and translational research. Federal and local agencies issue regulations governing the conduct of research involving human subjects in order to properly protect study participants. Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have the authority to review human subject research to ensure concordance with these regulations. One of the primary goals of the IRB oversight is to protect research participants' privacy by carefully reviewing the data used and disclosed during a study. However, there are major challenges for IRBs in the typical research process. Due to the information disconnect between the data providers (e.g., a clinical data warehouse) and the IRB, it is often impossible to tell exactly what data has been disclosed to investigators. This causes time-consuming, inefficient, and often ineffective monitoring of clinical studies. This paper proposes an integrated architecture that interconnects a federated healthcare data query platform with an electronic IRB system.

Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective

Background

For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system.

Methods

The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved.

Results

Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval.

Conclusions

For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review.

Perspectives of Canadian Researchers on Ethics Review of Neuroimaging Research

The current and potential uses of neuroimaging in healthcare and beyond have spurred discussion about the ethical issues related to neuroimaging and neuroimaging research. This study examined the perspectives of neuroimagers on ethical issues in their research and on the ethics review process. One hundred neuroimagers from 13 Canadian neuroscience centers completed an online survey and 35 semi-structured interviews were conducted. Neuroimagers felt that most ethical and social issues identified in the literature were dealt with adequately, well, and even very well by research ethics boards (REBs), but some issues such as incidental findings and transfer of knowledge were problematic. Neuroimagers reported a range of practical problems in the ethics review process. We aimed to gather perspectives from REB on the ethics review process, but insufficient participation by REBs prevented us from reporting their perspectives. Given shortcomings identified by neuroimagers as well as longstanding issues in Canadian ethics governance, we believe that substantial challenges exist in Canadian research ethics governance that jeopardize trust, communication, and the overall soundness of research ethics governance. Neuroimagers and REBs should consider their shared responsibilities in developing guidance to handle issues such as incidental findings, risk assessment, and knowledge transfer.

Clinical research regulation: challenges to the institutional review board system

The system in place to ensure the ethical conduct of human subject research in accordance with federal regulations has drawn great criticism from all sides, to include clinical investigators, administrators, research subjects, and legislators. The administrative requirements associated with clinical trials has changed dramatically in the last several decades, as has the complexity of the science being regulated. The institutional review board (IRB) system, however, appears to be struggling to keep pace, and has even been labeled a "system in jeopardy" by a national committee of experts. This contribution outlines the current obstacles and critique of IRBs, providing a discussion of the structure of the IRB system and strategies to meet these challenges.

Educational and social-ethical issues in the pursuit of molecular medicine

Molecular medicine is transforming everyday clinical practice from an empirical art to a rational ortho-molecular science. The prevailing concept in this emerging framework of molecular medicine is a personalized approach to disease prevention, diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment. In this mini-review, we discuss the educational and social-ethical issues raised by the advances of biomedical research as related to medical practice; outline the implications of molecular medicine for patients, physicians, and researchers; and underline the responsibilities of academia and the pharmaceutical industry to translate the scientific knowledge to a meaningful improvement of the quality of life across all members of society.