Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independen...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Clinical Trials Vol. 12; no. 5; pp. 449 - 457
Autores principales: O’Rourke, P. Pearl, Carrithers, Judith, Patrick-Lake, Bray, Rice, Todd W., Corsmo, Jeremy, Hart, Raffaella, Drezner, Marc K., Lantos, John D.
Formato: tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Sage Publications, Ltd. Oct2015
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=110479136&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 110479136
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        17407745
        AB6
      jtl: Clinical Trials
      issn: 17407745
      maglogo: N
    pubinfo:
      dt: Oct2015
      vid: 12
      iid: 5
      pid: 33180
      pub: Sage Publications, Ltd.
      place: <Blank>
    artinfo:
      ui:
        110479136
        110479136
        110479136
        10.1177/1740774515597685
        110479136
      ppf: 449
      ppct: 8
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.
      aug:
        au:
          O’Rourke, P. Pearl
          Carrithers, Judith
          Patrick-Lake, Bray
          Rice, Todd W.
          Corsmo, Jeremy
          Hart, Raffaella
          Drezner, Marc K.
          Lantos, John D.
        affil: Human Research Affairs, Partners HealthCare, Boston, MA, USA
      sug:
        subj:
          Clinical Trials
          Study Design
          Institutional Review
          Clinical Effectiveness
          Social Media
          Mobile Applications
          Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
          Conflict of Interest
      ab: The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review—and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N