Single IRB Review and Local Context Considerations: A Scoping Review

Author:

Morain Stephanie R.1,Singleton Megan K.2,Tsiandoulas Kate3,Bollinger Juli4,Sugarman Jeremy5

Affiliation:

1. Associate professor in the Bloomberg School of Public Health's Department of Health Policy & Management and core faculty at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University

2. Associate dean for human research protection and director of the Human Research Protection Program at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine

3. Policy analyst with the Duke Margolis Institute for Health Policy

4. Research scientist at the Berman Institute of Bioethics

5. Deputy director for medicine and Harvey M. Meyerhoff Professor of Bioethics and Medicine at the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University

Abstract

ABSTRACTA leading concern about single IRB (sIRB) review for multisite studies, as is now required by federal policies, is whether and how sIRBs consider local context in their review. While several types of local context considerations have been proposed, there is no shared agreement among those charged with the ethics oversight of human subjects research as to the goals and content of local context review, nor the types of research studies for which sIRB review might be inappropriate. Through a scoping review of published scholarship, public comments, and federal guidance documents, we identified five assumed goals for local context review: protecting the rights and welfare of local participants; ensuring compliance with applicable laws and policies; assessing feasibility; promoting the quality of research; and promoting procedural justice. While a variety of content was proposed to be relevant, it was largely grouped into four domains: population/participant‐level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution‐level characteristics; and state and local laws. Proposed characteristics for exclusion from sIRB requirements reflected both protection‐ and efficiency‐based concerns. These findings can inform ongoing efforts to assess the implications of policies mandating sIRB review, and when exceptions to those policies might be appropriate.

Funder

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

Publisher

Wiley

Reference56 articles.

1. Final NIH Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi-Site Research;National Institutes of Health;Federal Register,2016

2. 45 C.F.R. 46.

3. Burdens on Research Imposed by Institutional Review Boards: The State of the Evidence and Its Implications for Regulatory Reform

4. Bringing the Common Rule into the 21st Century

5. Can Central IRBs Replace Local Review?

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