TY - JOUR
T1 - Notes from the field
T2 - Jumpstarting the IRB approval process in multicenter studies
AU - Blustein, Jan
AU - Regenstein, Marsha
AU - Siegel, Bruce
AU - Billings, John
PY - 2007/8
Y1 - 2007/8
N2 - Objective. To identify strategies that facilitate readiness for local Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, in multicenter studies. Study Setting. Eleven acute care hospitals, as they applied to participate in a foundation-sponsored quality improvement collaborative. Study Design. Case series. Data Collection/Extraction. Participant observation, supplemented with review of written and oral communications. Principal Findings. Applicant hospitals responded positively to efforts to engage them in early planning for the IRB review process. Strategies that were particularly effective were the provisions of application templates, a modular approach to study description, and reliance on conference calls to collectively engage prospective investigators, local IRB members, and the evaluation/national program office teams. Together, these strategies allowed early identification of problems, clarification of intent, and relatively timely completion of the local IRB review process, once hospitals were selected to participate in the learning collaborative. Conclusions. Engaging potential collaborators in planning for IRB review may help expedite and facilitate review, without compromising the fairness of the grant-making process or the integrity of human subjects protection.
AB - Objective. To identify strategies that facilitate readiness for local Institutional Review Board (IRB) review, in multicenter studies. Study Setting. Eleven acute care hospitals, as they applied to participate in a foundation-sponsored quality improvement collaborative. Study Design. Case series. Data Collection/Extraction. Participant observation, supplemented with review of written and oral communications. Principal Findings. Applicant hospitals responded positively to efforts to engage them in early planning for the IRB review process. Strategies that were particularly effective were the provisions of application templates, a modular approach to study description, and reliance on conference calls to collectively engage prospective investigators, local IRB members, and the evaluation/national program office teams. Together, these strategies allowed early identification of problems, clarification of intent, and relatively timely completion of the local IRB review process, once hospitals were selected to participate in the learning collaborative. Conclusions. Engaging potential collaborators in planning for IRB review may help expedite and facilitate review, without compromising the fairness of the grant-making process or the integrity of human subjects protection.
KW - Ethics committees
KW - Institutional Review Board
KW - Multicenter studies
KW - Research
KW - Research ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34347405502&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34347405502&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00687.x
DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2006.00687.x
M3 - Article
C2 - 17610447
AN - SCOPUS:34347405502
SN - 0017-9124
VL - 42
SP - 1773
EP - 1782
JO - Health Services Research
JF - Health Services Research
IS - 4
ER -