Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process.

IF 2.1 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2024-12-18 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2024.685
Stephanie R Morain, Juli Bollinger, Megan K Singleton, Mia Terkowitz, Christine Weston, Jeremy Sugarman
{"title":"Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process.","authors":"Stephanie R Morain, Juli Bollinger, Megan K Singleton, Mia Terkowitz, Christine Weston, Jeremy Sugarman","doi":"10.1017/cts.2024.685","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Local context is the most common concern regarding use of a single institutional review board (sIRB). Yet what \"local context\" constitutes remains underspecified. Developing a shared understanding of the goals of local context review, the categories of information that should be considered, as well as the types of studies for which sIRB review may be inappropriate, are critical for ensuring that sIRB review provides adequate protections for human subjects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a three-round modified Delphi process convening individuals with expertise in the conduct and oversight of multisite research. Delphi surveys explored: (1) the goals of local context review; (2) the types of information that should be considered; and (3) study types that should be exempted from sIRB requirements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-one experts participated. Experts agreed that (1) local context review should aim to both protect local participants and ensure compliance and (2) that four types of information should be considered (population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws). There was less consensus about whether existing processes facilitated adequate consideration of this information. Experts agreed that exemptions from sIRB requirements should be permitted but disagreed about when and in what circumstances.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is overlapping consensus about both the goals of local context review and the types of information that should be assessed. Future work remains, however, to develop effective processes to best realize the goals of local context review - and do so with appropriate efficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e2"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11736292/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2024.685","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Local context is the most common concern regarding use of a single institutional review board (sIRB). Yet what "local context" constitutes remains underspecified. Developing a shared understanding of the goals of local context review, the categories of information that should be considered, as well as the types of studies for which sIRB review may be inappropriate, are critical for ensuring that sIRB review provides adequate protections for human subjects.

Methods: We conducted a three-round modified Delphi process convening individuals with expertise in the conduct and oversight of multisite research. Delphi surveys explored: (1) the goals of local context review; (2) the types of information that should be considered; and (3) study types that should be exempted from sIRB requirements.

Results: Twenty-one experts participated. Experts agreed that (1) local context review should aim to both protect local participants and ensure compliance and (2) that four types of information should be considered (population/participant-level characteristics; investigator and research team characteristics; institution-level characteristics; and state and local laws). There was less consensus about whether existing processes facilitated adequate consideration of this information. Experts agreed that exemptions from sIRB requirements should be permitted but disagreed about when and in what circumstances.

Conclusion: There is overlapping consensus about both the goals of local context review and the types of information that should be assessed. Future work remains, however, to develop effective processes to best realize the goals of local context review - and do so with appropriate efficiency.

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
由单一机构审查委员会进行的地方背景审查:来自改进的德尔菲过程的结果。
本地背景是使用单一机构审查委员会(sIRB)最常见的问题。然而,什么是“本地环境”仍然没有被明确。就本地背景审查的目标、应考虑的信息类别以及sIRB审查可能不适合的研究类型达成共识,对于确保sIRB审查为人类受试者提供充分的保护至关重要。方法:我们进行了三轮改进的德尔菲过程,召集了具有多地点研究行为和监督专业知识的个人。德尔菲调查探讨了:(1)地方语境评价的目标;(二)应当考虑的信息类型;(3)应豁免sIRB规定的研究类型。结果:21位专家参与。专家们一致认为(1)当地情况审查应旨在保护当地参与者并确保遵守;(2)应考虑四种类型的信息(人口/参与者层面的特征;调查人员及研究团队特点;institution-level特征;以及州和地方法律)。对于现有程序是否有助于充分审议这些资料,没有多少一致意见。专家们一致认为,应允许豁免sIRB要求,但在何时以及在何种情况下存在分歧。结论:关于地方背景审查的目标和应该评估的信息类型,存在重叠的共识。但是,今后的工作仍然是发展有效的程序,以便最好地实现当地情况审查的目标- -并以适当的效率这样做。
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
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Health impacts of a remotely delivered prolonged nightly fasting intervention in stressed adults with memory decline and obesity: A nationwide randomized controlled pilot trial - ADDENDUM. Erratum: 489 Nasal-derived Extracellular Vesicles (EVs) carry a cargo of antiviral and immunomodulatory molecules - CORRIGENDUM. Local context review by single institutional review boards: Results from a modified Delphi process. Considerations and recommendations for collaborative research networks in epidemiology: Lessons learned from the diabetes LEAD Network. Training T-shaped translational scientists.
×
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