Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Investigator Attendance At Review Board Reviews: Hindrance Or Help?

Date:
March 10, 2008
Source:
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions
Summary:
Inviting researchers to attend institutional review board sessions designed to approve these same investigators' requests to conduct research involving human subjects doesn't seem to affect the efficiency of the process one way or the other, a new study led by Johns Hopkins bioethicists suggests.

Inviting researchers to attend institutional review board sessions designed to approve these same investigators' requests to conduct research involving human subjects doesn't seem to affect the efficiency of the process one way or the other, a new study led by Johns Hopkins bioethicists suggests.

The findings are the result of one of the few studies to date that have sought to verify or challenge a fairly wide perception that inviting participation by so-called principal investigators, or PIs, could introduce more inefficiencies in what already is a lengthy and detailed process beset by scheduling problems, poor investigator-IRB relationships and administrative delays. Some researchers have suggested an opposing view: that inviting PIs can improve efficiency.

"The limited data on IRBs indicate they do not routinely invite PIs to attend convened meetings," says Holly Taylor, assistant professor in the Department of Health Policy and Management at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and assistant director of empirical research at the Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics. She and her coauthors on the review of IRB practices at The Johns Hopkins University say one national estimate found that fewer than 9 percent of IRBs require PIs to attend the meetings.

Under federal law and regulations, and to assure the safety and welfare of research volunteers, all institutions that receive federal funds to conduct human subject research require review and approval by an IRB, a group generally composed of senior scientists not involved in the research under review along with individuals who represent the lay community. Bioethicists and others familiar with human research protocols also may be involved.

Among other things, IRBs carefully consider questions such as whether the study's science is valid and generalizable, whether its benefits outweigh risks that volunteers might encounter, and whether volunteers will be adequately informed about the study to consent to participate.

While serving as members of four IRBs at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Holly A. Taylor, Nancy E. Kass and other bioethicists at theBerman Institute of Bioethics noticed that some IRBs regularly invite PIs when their research plans are discussed while other IRBs do not.

Wondering whether there was any difference in inefficiency between IRBs that did or did not invite PIs, Taylor and Kass, along with former Johns Hopkins master's degree student Peter Currie, now a law student at Georgetown University, looked back at 125 IRB reviews conducted by four Johns Hopkins School of Medicine IRBs between March 2002 and June 2005. Two of the IRBs did not regularly invite PIs to their meetings, one did, and a fourth switched midway through the examination period from not inviting PIs to inviting them.

The team wondered, for example, whether PIs in attendance could more efficiently answer any questions that arise quickly and directly, rather than by replying to multiple calls and e-mails from different board members after a meeting takes place. So they checked the total time it took to approve the research plans, how many pieces of correspondence passed between the IRB and the PI, and how many meetings took place where a particular study was discussed.

Their analysis, published in the January-February Issue of IRB: Ethics & Human Research, showed few differences between IRBs that invited PIs to attend meetings and those that didn't. All took an average of 65 days to approve each study's plans, had about five pieces of correspondence pass between the IRB and the PI, and reviewed a study at an average of 1.6 meetings.

Taylor noted that in the IRB that switched from not inviting PIs to inviting them, time to approval went down from an average of 114 days when PIs weren't present at meetings to 70 days when PIs attended. Additionally, the number of meetings where each study was discussed changed from an average of 2.4 to 1.7. The researchers aren't sure whether the presence of the investigator was a factor in this improved efficiency, but they suggest that it could be one of many factors that led to the change.

"PIs are really busy, and some IRB members might worry that requiring PI attendance could delay scheduling. We didn't find that was the case," she says.

She and her colleagues plan to eventually test PI attendance at multiple research institutions prospectively by randomly assigning PIs to be present or absent at meetings. Taylor notes that finding ways to improve the efficiency of IRB approval can help researchers begin their research faster.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Cite This Page:

Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. "Investigator Attendance At Review Board Reviews: Hindrance Or Help?." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 10 March 2008. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310151946.htm>.
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. (2008, March 10). Investigator Attendance At Review Board Reviews: Hindrance Or Help?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved October 21, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310151946.htm
Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions. "Investigator Attendance At Review Board Reviews: Hindrance Or Help?." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080310151946.htm (accessed October 21, 2014).

Share This



More Science & Society News

Tuesday, October 21, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

CDC Revamps Ebola Guidelines After Criticism

CDC Revamps Ebola Guidelines After Criticism

Newsy (Oct. 21, 2014) The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have issued new protocols for healthcare workers interacting with Ebola patients. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Robots to Fly Planes Where Humans Can't

Robots to Fly Planes Where Humans Can't

Reuters - Innovations Video Online (Oct. 21, 2014) Researchers in South Korea are developing a robotic pilot that could potentially replace humans in the cockpit. Unlike drones and autopilot programs which are configured for specific aircraft, the robots' humanoid design will allow it to fly any type of plane with no additional sensors. Ben Gruber reports. Video provided by Reuters
Powered by NewsLook.com
WHO: Ebola Vaccine Trials to Start a in January

WHO: Ebola Vaccine Trials to Start a in January

AP (Oct. 21, 2014) Tens of thousands of doses of experimental Ebola vaccines could be available for "real-world" testing in West Africa as soon as January as long as they are deemed safe in soon to start trials, the World Health Organization said Tuesday. (Oct. 21) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
'Cadaver Dog' Sniffs out Human Remains

'Cadaver Dog' Sniffs out Human Remains

AP (Oct. 21, 2014) Where's a body buried? Buster's nose can often tell you. He's a cadaver dog, specially trained to find human remains and increasingly being used by law enforcement and accepted in courts. These dogs are helping solve even decades-old mysteries. (Oct. 21) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:

Strange & Offbeat Stories


Science & Society

Business & Industry

Education & Learning

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins