Dataset Information

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.

ABSTRACT: Background:Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs. Methods:680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB. Results:390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified. Conclusions:Although these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.

SUBMITTER: Hall DE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409436 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.

Hall Daniel E DE Feske Ulrike U Hanusa Barbara H BH Ling Bruce S BS Stone Roslyn A RA Gao Shasha S Switzer Galen E GE Dobalian Aram A Fine Michael J MJ Arnold Robert M RM

AJOB empirical bioethics 20160623 4

<h4>Background</h4>Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs.<h4>Methods</h4>680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the ...[more]

PMID: 32775502

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Socially disadvantaged populations carry a disproportionate burden of diabetes-related morbidity and mortality. There is an emerging interest in quality improvement (QI) strategies in the care of patients with diabetes, however, the effect of these interventions on disadvantaged groups remains unclear. OBJECTIVE:This is a secondary analysis of a systematic review that seeks to examine the extent of equity considerations in diabetes QI studies, specifically quantifying the proportion of studies that target interventions toward disadvantaged populations and conduct analyses on the impact of interventions on disadvantaged groups. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS:Studies were identified using Medline, HealthStar and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care database. Randomised controlled trials assessing 12 QI strategies targeting health systems, healthcare professionals and/or patients for the management of adult outpatients with diabetes were eligible. The place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupational status, gender/sexual identity, religious affiliations, education level, socioeconomic status, social capital, plus age, disability, sexual preferences and relationships (PROGRESS-Plus) framework was used to identify trials that focused on disadvantaged patient populations, to examine the types of equity-relevant factors that are being considered and to explore temporal trends in equity-relevant diabetes QI trials. RESULTS:Of the 278 trials that met the inclusion criteria, 95 trials had equity-relevant considerations. These include 64 targeted trials that focused on a disadvantaged population with the aim to improve the health status of that population and 31 general trials that undertook subgroup analyses to assess the extent to which their interventions may have had differential impacts on disadvantaged subgroups. Trials predominantly focused on race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status and place of residence as potential factors for disadvantage in patients receiving diabetes care. CONCLUSIONS:Less than one-third of diabetes QI trials included equity-relevant considerations, limiting the relevance and applicability of their data to disadvantaged populations. There is a need for better data collection, reporting, analysis and interventions on the social determinants of health that may influence the health outcomes of patients with diabetes. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42013005165.

Project description:BackgroundEmerging technologies have demonstrated outstanding potential in improving healthcare, yet their full integration remains a challenge for all medical specialties, including pediatrics. To support the swift implementation of technologies, we identified the current trends through a bibliometric review, and we conducted a survey on Italian pediatricians to gauge educational needs and willingness to integrate technologies into clinical practice.MethodsA working group of pediatricians representing various backgrounds designed and coordinated the study. To identify relevant topics for educational strategy development, we focused on virtual reality, telehealth, natural language processing, smartphone applications, robotics, genomics, and artificial intelligence. A bibliometric analysis limited to 2018-2023 was performed to identify trends and emerging applications within each topic. Based on the results, a questionnaire was developed and made available online to all Italian pediatricians. The results were analyzed through descriptive analysis and a multivariable logistic regression to explore associations between technology adoption and sociodemographic characteristics.ResultsA total of 3,253 publications were found, with Telehealth and Telemedicine having the highest number of publications and Natural Language Processing the lowest. The number of respondents to the online questionnaire was 1,540, predominantly medical doctors with over 20 years of experience working as family pediatricians. Telehealth had the highest level of knowledge (95.2%), followed by smartphone applications (89.1%) and genomics (63.2%). The greatest potential for increased use through education programs was projected for natural language processing (+ 43.1%), artificial intelligence (+ 39.6%), and virtual and mixed reality (+ 38.1%). Female respondents and older individuals were less likely to use emerging technologies. Hospital pediatricians and residents were more likely to use AI.ConclusionsWe developed a replicable strategy to identify emerging themes in medical technologies relevant to pediatrics and assess the educational needs of pediatricians. A significant gap still exists between current and potential usage of emerging technologies among Italian pediatricians although they showed a positive attitude towards implementing these technologies following specific education programs. The study highlights the need for comprehensive education programs on emerging technologies in pediatrics and recommends addressing gender and age disparities in technology adoption.

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe, qualitatively and quantitatively, the impact of a review by multiple institutional review boards (IRBs) on the conduct of a multisite observational health services research study. DATA SOURCE AND SETTING: Primary data collection during 2002, 2003, and 2004 at 43 United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics.DesignExplanatory sequential mixed methods design incorporating qualitative and quantitative elements in sequence. DATA COLLECTION AND ABSTRACTION METHODS: Field notes and documents collected by research staff during a multisite observational health services research study were used in thematic analysis. Themes were quantified descriptively and merged with timeline data.Principal findingsApproximately 4,680 hours of staff time over a 19-month period were devoted solely to the IRB process. Four categories of phenomena impacting research were observed: (1) Recruitment, retention, and communication issues with local site principal investigators (PIs). Local PIs had no real role but were required by IRBs. Twenty-one percent of sites experienced turnover in local PIs, and local PI issues added significant delay to most sites. (2) Wide variation in standards applied to review and approval of IRB applications. The study was designed to be qualified under U.S. government regulations for expedited review. One site exempted it from review (although it did not qualify for exemption), 10 granted expedited review, 31 required full review, and one rejected it as being too risky to be permitted. Twenty-three required inapplicable sections in the consent form and five required HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) consent from physicians although no health information was asked of them. Twelve sites requested, and two insisted upon, provisions that directly increased the risk to participants. (3) Multiple returns for revision of IRB applications, consent documents, and ancillary forms. Seventy-six percent of sites required at least one resubmission, and 15 percent of sites required three or more (up to six) resubmissions. Only 12 percent of sites required any procedural or substantive revision; most resubmissions were editorial changes to the wording of the consent document. (4) Process failures (long turnaround times, lost paperwork, difficulty in obtaining necessary forms, unavailability of key personnel at IRBs). The process required from 52 to 798 (median 286) days to obtain approval at each site.ConclusionsSeveral features of the IRB system as currently configured impose costly burdens of administrative activity and delay on observational health services research studies, and paradoxically decrease protection of human subjects. Central review with local opt-out, cooperative review, or a system of peer review could reduce costs and improve protection of human subjects.

Project description:Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been increasingly criticized for how they review protocols, but how IRBs perceive, and make decisions about, the quality of the science of protocols has not been examined.To explore how and when IRBs view and make decisions about the quality of the science of studies they review.I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding) and interviewed IRB chairs, co-chairs, administrators, and a director from 34 IRBs (response rate = 55%), and an additional 7 members.Interviewees faced several ambiguities and questions concerning the quality of the science of protocols. IRBs are often not sure how and to what extent to evaluate the science of protocols, whether the science should be 'good enough' (and if so, what that means) versus as good as possible. Federal regulations state that IRBs should ensure that risks are minimized, and commensurate with benefits. Thus, at times IRBs feel that changing the science is ethically necessary. But IRBs also then struggle with whether to adopt a higher threshold (1) that social and thus scientific benefits be maximized and (2) that scientific efforts and resources should not be wasted. Committees face dilemmas - for example, if a 'perfect' study is not feasible. For protocols already approved elsewhere (e.g., by the NIH), IRBs vary in how much they feel they can request alterations, and sometimes make changes nonetheless. Larger institutional contexts and biases can shape these issues, and IRBs differ in how much they are 'pro-research', and have sufficient expertise. IRBs at times also approve studies despite reservations about the science.This study includes interviews with IRBs, but not observations of IRB meetings.IRBs often face ambiguities and conflicting goals in assessing scientific quality. Many IRBs try to improve the science beyond what the regulations mandate. These data have important implications for improving practice, education, research, and policy.

Dataset Information

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.

Publications

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets