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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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