Cargando…
Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards
INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasib...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cambridge University Press
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159811/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32313701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.439 |
_version_ | 1783522643762216960 |
---|---|
author | Selker, Harry P. Welch, Lisa C. Patchen-Fowler, Elizabeth Breeze, Janis L. Terrin, Norma Parajulee, Anshu LeClair, Amy Naeim, Arash Marnocha, Rebecca Morelli Novak, Julie Caldwell, Christine Sego Cola, Philip A. Croker, Jennifer A. Cifu, David X. Williams, Kirsten M. Snyder, Denise C. Kitterman, Darlene |
author_facet | Selker, Harry P. Welch, Lisa C. Patchen-Fowler, Elizabeth Breeze, Janis L. Terrin, Norma Parajulee, Anshu LeClair, Amy Naeim, Arash Marnocha, Rebecca Morelli Novak, Julie Caldwell, Christine Sego Cola, Philip A. Croker, Jennifer A. Cifu, David X. Williams, Kirsten M. Snyder, Denise C. Kitterman, Darlene |
author_sort | Selker, Harry P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7159811 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Cambridge University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-71598112020-04-20 Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards Selker, Harry P. Welch, Lisa C. Patchen-Fowler, Elizabeth Breeze, Janis L. Terrin, Norma Parajulee, Anshu LeClair, Amy Naeim, Arash Marnocha, Rebecca Morelli Novak, Julie Caldwell, Christine Sego Cola, Philip A. Croker, Jennifer A. Cifu, David X. Williams, Kirsten M. Snyder, Denise C. Kitterman, Darlene J Clin Transl Sci Research Article INTRODUCTION: Scientific quality and feasibility are part of ethics review by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) were proposed to facilitate this assessment by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) SRC Consensus Group. This study assessed SRC feasibility and impact at CTSA-affiliated academic health centers (AHCs). METHODS: SRC implementation at 10 AHCs was assessed pre/post-intervention using quantitative and qualitative methods. Pre-intervention, four AHCs had no SRC, and six had at least one SRC needing modifications to better align with Consensus Group recommendations. RESULTS: Facilitators of successful SRC implementation included broad-based communication, an external motivator, senior-level support, and committed SRC reviewers. Barriers included limited resources and staffing, variable local mandates, limited SRC authority, lack of anticipated benefit, and operational challenges. Research protocol quality did not differ significantly between study periods, but respondents suggested positive effects. During intervention, median total review duration did not lengthen for the 40% of protocols approved within 3 weeks. For the 60% under review after 3 weeks, review was lengthened primarily due to longer IRB review for SRC-reviewed protocols. Site interviews recommended designing locally effective SRC processes, building buy-in by communication or by mandate, allowing time for planning and sharing best practices, and connecting SRC and IRB procedures. CONCLUSIONS: The CTSA SRC Consensus Group recommendations appear feasible. Although not conclusive in this relatively short initial implementation, sites perceived positive impact by SRCs on study quality. Optimal benefit will require local or federal mandate for implementation, adapting processes to local contexts, and employing SRC stipulations. Cambridge University Press 2020-01-27 /pmc/articles/PMC7159811/ /pubmed/32313701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.439 Text en © The Association for Clinical and Translational Science 2020 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Selker, Harry P. Welch, Lisa C. Patchen-Fowler, Elizabeth Breeze, Janis L. Terrin, Norma Parajulee, Anshu LeClair, Amy Naeim, Arash Marnocha, Rebecca Morelli Novak, Julie Caldwell, Christine Sego Cola, Philip A. Croker, Jennifer A. Cifu, David X. Williams, Kirsten M. Snyder, Denise C. Kitterman, Darlene Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title | Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title_full | Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title_fullStr | Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title_full_unstemmed | Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title_short | Scientific Review Committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: Initial implementation at institutions with Clinical and Translational Science Awards |
title_sort | scientific review committees as part of institutional review of human participant research: initial implementation at institutions with clinical and translational science awards |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7159811/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32313701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/cts.2019.439 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT selkerharryp scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT welchlisac scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT patchenfowlerelizabeth scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT breezejanisl scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT terrinnorma scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT parajuleeanshu scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT leclairamy scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT naeimarash scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT marnocharebecca scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT morellinovakjulie scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT caldwellchristinesego scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT colaphilipa scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT crokerjennifera scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT cifudavidx scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT williamskirstenm scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT snyderdenisec scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards AT kittermandarlene scientificreviewcommitteesaspartofinstitutionalreviewofhumanparticipantresearchinitialimplementationatinstitutionswithclinicalandtranslationalscienceawards |