IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

D. McCausland, Margaret Haigh, P. McCallion, M. McCarron
{"title":"IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)","authors":"D. McCausland, Margaret Haigh, P. McCallion, M. McCarron","doi":"10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A shift from single to multi-site health studies enabled a range of research benefits including faster recruitment of larger and more diverse samples; increased statistical power, greater rigour, generalisability, and external reliability; and increased likelihood of impacting policy and clinical practice. However, ethical review of multi-site studies by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises specific challenges compared with single site studies, with requirements to apply to multiple local IRBs increasing the burden on research, possibly endangering the integrity of the research process or inhibiting development of multi-site studies. The option of a single centralised IRB may offer a clearer, more consistent and efficient review process. This study presents a case report and commentary from 15 years engaging with IRBs in multiple sites in Ireland by the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). It examines the ethics review process for IDS-TILDA through its first four waves. While the majority of 48 IRBs granted ethical approval within 13 weeks, six IRBs took 21–47 weeks to approve, leading to delays in data collection of up to 11 months. Despite additional review time, no changes were required to the study protocol. Therefore, a critical impact of the process was the delay in starting data collection within a small number of organisations, and reduced involvement in the study for one organisation. The ethical review process with multiple IRBs increased the degree of complexity of the process, with added bureaucracy and far greater communication required across 48 IRBs, substantially adding to the resource commitment for the review process. The relatively quick approval from the majority of IRBs was partially a result of the longitudinal study building relationships with organisations throughout multiple waves. That other health studies may not accrue this benefit supports calls for a single IRB system for multi-site health studies.","PeriodicalId":508744,"journal":{"name":"HRB Open Research","volume":"34 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRB Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A shift from single to multi-site health studies enabled a range of research benefits including faster recruitment of larger and more diverse samples; increased statistical power, greater rigour, generalisability, and external reliability; and increased likelihood of impacting policy and clinical practice. However, ethical review of multi-site studies by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) raises specific challenges compared with single site studies, with requirements to apply to multiple local IRBs increasing the burden on research, possibly endangering the integrity of the research process or inhibiting development of multi-site studies. The option of a single centralised IRB may offer a clearer, more consistent and efficient review process. This study presents a case report and commentary from 15 years engaging with IRBs in multiple sites in Ireland by the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA). It examines the ethics review process for IDS-TILDA through its first four waves. While the majority of 48 IRBs granted ethical approval within 13 weeks, six IRBs took 21–47 weeks to approve, leading to delays in data collection of up to 11 months. Despite additional review time, no changes were required to the study protocol. Therefore, a critical impact of the process was the delay in starting data collection within a small number of organisations, and reduced involvement in the study for one organisation. The ethical review process with multiple IRBs increased the degree of complexity of the process, with added bureaucracy and far greater communication required across 48 IRBs, substantially adding to the resource commitment for the review process. The relatively quick approval from the majority of IRBs was partially a result of the longitudinal study building relationships with organisations throughout multiple waves. That other health studies may not accrue this benefit supports calls for a single IRB system for multi-site health studies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
多站点研究中的 IRB 挑战:爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究(IDS-TILDA)智障补充案例报告与评论
从单一地点健康研究到多地点健康研究的转变带来了一系列研究优势,包括更快地招募到更多和更多样化的样本;提高统计能力、严谨性、普遍性和外部可靠性;以及更有可能对政策和临床实践产生影响。然而,与单点研究相比,机构审查委员会(IRB)对多点研究的伦理审查提出了特殊的挑战,因为需要向多个地方机构审查委员会提出申请,这增加了研究负担,可能会危及研究过程的完整性或阻碍多点研究的发展。选择单一的集中式 IRB 可以提供更清晰、更一致、更高效的审查流程。本研究介绍了爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究(IDS-TILDA)智障补充项目与爱尔兰多个研究机构合作 15 年的案例报告和评论。本研究探讨了 IDS-TILDA 前四期的伦理审查过程。虽然 48 个独立审查委员会中的大多数都在 13 周内通过了伦理审批,但有 6 个独立审查委员会的审批时间长达 21-47 周,导致数据收集延迟长达 11 个月。尽管增加了审查时间,但研究方案无需更改。因此,该过程的一个重要影响就是少数机构推迟了数据收集的开始时间,一个机构减少了对研究的参与。多个 IRB 的伦理审查过程增加了过程的复杂程度,增加了官僚主义,48 个 IRB 之间需要更多的沟通,大大增加了审查过程的资源投入。大多数 IRB 的批准相对较快,部分原因是纵向研究在多个波次中与各组织建立了关系。其他健康研究可能无法获得这种好处,这也支持了为多地点健康研究建立单一 IRB 系统的呼吁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The impact of social deprivation on development and progression of diabetic kidney disease Factors influencing implementation of digital cardiac rehabilitation: A qualitative analysis of health workers perspectives Facilitators and Barriers to Implementation of Financial Incentive Interventions for Health Behaviour Change: A Systematic Review Protocol Delivery of Dose Adjustment For Normal Eating (DAFNE) in the UK and Ireland 2019-2022 Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a national research strategy for paramedicine in Ireland: Findings from a focus group study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1