Stakeholder Reflections on Implementing the National Institutes of Health's Policy on Single Institutional Review Boards

Author:

Corneli Amy1,McKenna Kevin2,Hanlen‐Rosado Emily3,Calvert Sara B.4,Mah Eric5,Rosenfeld Stephen J.6

Affiliation:

1. Associate professor in the Department of Population Health Sciences, a faculty member at the Duke Clinical Research Institute, and a lead social scientist of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative at Duke University School of Medicine

2. Research program leader in the Department of Population Health Sciences and a senior research associate of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative at Duke University School of Medicine

3. Research program leader in the Department of Population Health Sciences and a research associate of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative at Duke University School of Medicine

4. Director of projects in the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative at Duke Clinical Research Institute at Duke University

5. Associate dean of clinical and translational research in the Department of Health Sciences at the University of California, San Diego

6. Executive director of North Star Review Board in Freeport, ME

Abstract

ABSTRACTThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH‐funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in‐depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.

Funder

National Institutes of Health

Publisher

Wiley

Subject

Health (social science)

Reference22 articles.

1. “Single IRB for Multi-site or Cooperative Research ” National Institutes of Health accessed May 27 2022 https://grants.nih.gov/policy/humansubjects/single-irb-policy-multi-site-research.htm.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Human Research Protections revised Common Rule 2017 https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/regulations/finalized-revisions-common-rule/index.html.

3. “Final NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research ” notice no. NOT-OD-16-094 National Institutes of Health accessed February 2 2022 https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-16-094.html.

4. National Institutes of Health Office of Intramural Research “Single IRB & the Exceptions Request Process for the Research Community ” slide deck accessed May 27 2022 https://grants.nih.gov/sites/default/files/Single%20IRB%20&%20Exceptions%20Process%20Webinar%20October%2018%202017.pdf.

5. A Measure of Effectiveness Is Key to the Success of sIRB Policy

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. References;The Multilevel Community Engagement Model;2024-09-09

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3