Cyslabdan, a New Potentiator of Imipenem Activity against Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Produced by Streptomyces sp. K04-0144

Atsushi Fukumoto,Yong-Pil Kim,A. Matsumoto,Yōko Takahashi,K. Shiomi,H. Tomoda,S. Ōmura

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/ja.2008.101

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Investigating Perceived Institutional Review Board Quality and Function Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool

Jonathan C Reeser,Diane M Austin,Linda M Jaros,Bickol N Mukesh,Catherine A McCarty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.25

Abstract:THE INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD-RESEARCHER ASSESSMENT TOOL (IRB-RAT) was designed to assess the relative importance of various factors to the effective functioning of IRBs. We employed the IRB-RAT to gain insight into the ways in which our IRB is perceived to be deficient by those who routinely interact with our Office of Research Integrity and Protections. Respondents ranked qualities thought to be characteristic of an "ideal" IRB and then compared our IRB to that internal standard. We observed that the rate of study participation varied by role. The composite relative ranking of the 45 items that comprise the IRB-RAT differed significantly from the rank order reported by Keith-Spiegel et al. Our data furthermore suggest that role influences scoring of the IRB-RAT (e.g., investigators awarded our IRB significantly higher scores in several areas than did research coordinators). Additional research is warranted to determine if the observed role-dependent differences in the perceived quality of our IRB simply reflect the local research culture or if they are indicative of a more fundamental and generalizable difference in outlook between investigators and research coordinators.
Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement

Daniel E Hall,Ulrike Feske,Barbara H Hanusa,Bruce S Ling,Roslyn A Stone,Shasha Gao,Galen E Switzer,Aram Dobalian,Michael J Fine,Robert M Arnold

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2016.1186757

Abstract:Background: Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency, delay, and bias, suggesting an opportunity for quality improvement. To aid such quality improvement, this study aimed at determining IRB members' and investigators' priorities regarding IRB review at 10 Veterans Affairs (VA) IRBs. Methods: 680 anonymous internet surveys were sent to 252 IRB members and staff, and 428 principal investigators and project coordinators at 9 VA Medical Centers and the VA Central IRB. Surveys included 27 statements adapted from Koocher and Kieth-Spiegel's IRB-RAT describing IRB activities or functions (e.g., "An IRB that is open to reversing its earlier decisions"). Respondents indicated how each statement described both their "ideal" and "actual" IRBs. The difference between the ratings of the actual and ideal IRBs was calculated for each item along with estimated 95% confidence intervals. Ratings outside those intervals indicated activities or functions with relatively good or poor performance compared to the ideal IRB. Results: 390 (57.4%) responses from 165 IRB members and staff (65.5%) and 225 investigators and project coordinators (52.6%) demonstrated that these IRBs were closest to the ideal when protecting human subjects, treating investigators with respect, and taking appropriate action for alleged scientific misconduct. The IRBs were furthest from the ideal regarding duplicative forms, timeliness of review, and provision of complete rationales for decisions. Although IRB members reported near-ideal willingness to reverse earlier decisions, investigators rated this capacity far from ideal. Investigators rated IRB members' knowledge about procedures and policy as nearly ideal, but IRB members themselves rated this aspect far from ideal. Noteworthy site-level differences in the ratings of IRB functions and activities were also identified. Conclusions: Although these VA IRBs perform well in some areas, these data support the need for ongoing quality improvement. The described method of administering and analyzing the IRB-RAT may help identify and monitor site- and activity- specific initiatives for quality improvement.
The Quality Improvement Review Board: An Innovative Approach to Oversight of Projects That Do Not Meet Criteria of Human Subject Research

Toni L Denison,Kristyn U Sorensen,Michael P Blanton,Lara Johnson,Theresa Byrd,Steven E Pass,Lacy Philips,Joyce Miller,Lance R McMahon,Barbara Cherry,Toni L. Denison,Kristyn U. Sorensen,Michael P. Blanton,Steven E. Pass,Lance R. McMahon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/qmh.0000000000000446

2024-02-28

Quality Management in Health Care

Abstract:This article describes the development of an institutional quality improvement review board (QIRB) as an effective and efficient method for reviewing and overseeing institutional quality improvement (QI) initiatives. QI projects involve the systematic collection and analysis of data and the implementation of interventions designed to improve the quality of clinical care and/or educational programs for a distinct population in a specific setting. QI projects are fundamentally distinct from human subjects research (HuSR); however, the differences between them are subtle and highly nuanced. Determining whether a project meets the definition of QI or qualifies as HuSR, thus requiring institutional review board (IRB) review, can be confusing and frustrating. Nevertheless, this distinction is highly consequential due to the heavy regulatory requirements involved in HuSR and IRB oversight. Making the correct determination of a project’s regulatory status is essential before the project begins. Project leaders may not realize that their work meets the definition of HuSR and, therefore, might conduct the project without appropriate IRB review. Therefore, best practices dictate that project leaders should not decide which type of institutional review is appropriate for their projects. In addition, when QI project teams attempt to disseminate the results of their work, documentation of formal review and approval is generally required by peer-reviewed journals and professional organizations. However, institutional review mechanisms are rarely available. Projects that do not meet the definition of HuSR fall outside the purview of IRBs and most institutions do not have an alternative review body. This creates frustration for both project leaders and IRB administrators. Apart from IRB review, a separate process for reviewing QI projects offers several benefits. These include (1) relieving the burden on busy IRB staff; (2) promoting scholarly activity; (3) protecting the institution, project leaders, and participants from HuSR conducted outside of appropriate IRB review; and (4) promoting rigorous QI methods.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?

Holly Fernandez Lynch,Holly A. Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641

2022-06-23

AJOB Empirical Bioethics

Abstract:Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP "quality, effectiveness, and efficiency" (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization's approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.
Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis

Markus K. Labude,Liang Shen,Yujia Zhu,G. Owen Schaefer,Catherine Ong,Vicki Xafis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241783

IF: 3.7

2020-12-31

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Background Biomedical research is overseen by numerous Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in Singapore but there has been no research that examines how the research review process is perceived by the local research community nor is there any systematic data on perceptions regarding the review process or other research ethics processes and IRB characteristics. The aim of this study was to ascertain general views regarding the overall perceived value of ethics review processes; to measure perceptions about local IRB functions and characteristics; to identify IRB functions and characteristics viewed as important; and to compare these views with those of other international studies. Methods An online survey was used with the main component being the IRB-Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), a validated tool, to evaluate perceptions of ideal and actual IRB functions and characteristics held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff. Data were analysed descriptively first, with mean and SD of each item of IRB-RAT questionnaire reported, excluding the respondents whose answers were unknown or not applicable . The Wilcoxon Sign Rank test was used to compare the ideal and actual ratings of each IRB-RAT item, while the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the ratings of each IRB-RAT item between respondents with different characteristics. The Z-test was used to compare the mean ratings of our cohort with the mean ratings reported in the literature. The correlation between our mean ideal scores and those of two international studies also employing the IRB-RAT was examined. Results Seventy-one respondents completed the survey. This cohort generally held positive views of the impact of the ethics review process on: the quality of research; establishing and maintaining public trust in research; the protection of research participants; and on the scientific validity of research. The most important ideal IRB characteristics were timeliness, upholding participants’ rights while also facilitating research, working with investigators to find solutions when there are disagreements, and not allowing biases to affect reviews. For almost all 45 IRB-RAT statements, the rating of the importance of the characteristic was higher than the rating of how much that characteristic was descriptive of IRBs the respondents were familiar with. There was a significant strong correlation between our study’s scores on the ideal IRB characteristics and those of the first and largest published study that employed the IRB-RAT, the US National Validation (USNV) sample in Keith-Spiegel et al. [19]. Conclusions An understanding of the perceptions held by Singaporean researchers and research support staff on the value that the ethics review process adds, their perceptions of actual IRB functions and characteristics as well as what they view as central to high functioning IRBs is the first step to considering the aspects of the review process that might benefit from improvements. This study provides insight into how our cohort compares to others internationally and highlights strengths and areas for improvement of Singapore IRBs as perceived by a small sample of the local research community. Such insights provide a springboard for additional research and may assist in further enhancing good relations so that both are working towards the same end.

multidisciplinary sciences
Is Institutional Review Board (IRB) Doing Its Job Right? How To Assess This.

Shahtaj Baig,Farah Asif

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47391/jpma.7157

2023-06-15

Abstract:Objective To audit the performance of the institutional review board at a cancer hospital. METHODS The retrospective study was conducted at the Shaukat Khanum Memorial Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Lahore, Pakistan, in 2021, and comprised all records of the institutional review board from 2005 to 2021. The audit was based on a tool created by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programmes, and elements evaluated included terms of reference, membership lists, review records, meeting minutes, institutional research guidelines as well as other relevant policies. RESULTS The institutional review board was found to be in 100% compliance with all the elements set forth in the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programmes. The institutional review board was found to be an independent body with a diverse membership and the chairman was always an unaffiliated member. It had defined processes in line with relevant laws and guidelines. Review of research studies was devised to promote the ethical conduct of research. Conclusion Though a self-assessment, the audit objectively showed that the institutional review board was in cent per cent compliance with the evaluation instrument developed and used by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programmes. Nevertheless, it still needs further discussion as to how high levels of efficiency and performance of institutional review boards ultimately provide a higher degree of protection to human research participants.

Medicine
Board Quality Scorecards: Measuring Improvement

Christine A. Goeschel,Sean M. Berenholtz,Richard A. Culbertson,Linda Jin,Peter J. Pronovost

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1062860610389324

2011-04-15

American Journal of Medical Quality

Abstract:Board accountability for quality and patient safety is widely accepted but the science for how to measure it is immature, and differences between measuring performance, identifying hazards, and monitoring progress are often misunderstood. Hospital leaders often provide scorecards to assist boards with their oversight role yet, in the absence of national standards, little evidence exists regarding which measures are valid and useful to boards to assess quality improvement. The authors describe results of a cross-sectional board study, identifying the measures used to monitor quality. The measures varied widely and many were of uncertain validity, generally identifying hazards rather than measuring rates. This article identifies some important policy implications regarding boards' oversight of quality and acknowledges existing limits to how we can measure quality and safety progress on the national or hospital level. If boards and their hospitals are to monitor progress in improving quality, they need more valid outcome measures.

health care sciences & services
Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

Kelly McBride Folkers,Alison Bateman-House

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018759661

2018-05-01

Abstract:BACKGROUND: The FDA allows patients with a serious or immediately life-threatening illness to use investigational medical products outside of clinical trials through its "expanded access" program. In response to criticism that the process to apply for expanded access is too onerous, numerous changes have been made over the last few years. These have been largely focused on the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, while institutional review boards (IRBs)-which must approve expanded access protocols, except in emergencies when there is not time to do so-have remained relatively unstudied. We conducted a pilot study to review a sample of publicly available IRB policies from the United States to investigate how these entities handle expanded access.METHODS: We performed an online search to find publicly available policies for IRBs operating in the United States, utilizing a convenience sampling strategy, selecting the first 100 eligible policies we identified.RESULTS: Of the 95 policies reviewed, the majority (92.6%, n = 88) contained language referencing nonemergency expanded access and/or expanded access for emergency requests for a single patient. Of these 88 policies, 11.4% (n = 19) did not explicitly specify detailed procedures for handling nonemergency single-patient expanded access requests. Of the 88 policies that mentioned expanded access in nonemergency situations, 11.5% did not explicitly specify whether full IRB review was required, as was the rule at that time. There was considerable variation in other aspects of these policies, including charging patients for use of investigational products and the use of data from expanded access.CONCLUSIONS: Based on the findings of our pilot, IRB policies on expanded access vary considerably. It is often difficult to find, interpret, and understand IRB policies on expanded access. Further research is needed to determine if and to what extent this negatively impacts patient access to investigational products outside of clinical trials.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Steps toward a System of IRB Precedent: Piloting Approaches to Summarizing IRB Decisions for Future Use

Andrea Seykora,Carl Coleman,Stephen J Rosenfeld,Barbara E Bierer,Holly Fernandez Lynch

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500106

Abstract:Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision-making, problems that undermine both trust in their ability to protect human research participants and respect for their decisions among researchers. The absence of robust documentation of their decisions and the inability or unwillingness to share those decisions together represent a missed opportunity for IRBs to learn from one another and advance debates about challenging ethical issues. The concept of IRB precedent, modeled upon the system of legal precedent, has been proposed as a potential solution to these problems. In theory, an IRB faced with a review decision could look back at previous IRB decisions, either its own or those of other boards, made in similar studies or circumstances to guide the present decision. Some IRBs attempt this informally within their institution, but few examples of a structured system of IRB precedent have been described in the literature, and none has been widely adopted. This article describes a pilot project to summarize IRB decisions in a way that could facilitate their use as precedent by creating a documentation tool that meets four criteria-comprehensiveness, validity, searchability, and efficiency. Though this process turned out to be more challenging than expected, we identified key features of such a tool that holds promise for future development and could promote more consistent, robust IRB decision-making and advance discourse in human research ethics.
The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

H E M van Luijn,N K Aaronson,R B Keus,A W Musschenga

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.001503

2006-03-01

Journal of Medical Ethics

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: There are indications that institutional review board (IRB) members do not find it easy to assess the risks and benefits in medical experiments, although this is their principal duty. This study examined how IRB members assessed the risk/benefit ratio (RBR) of a specific phase II breast cancer clinical trial.PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The trial was evaluated by means of a questionnaire administered to 43 members of IRBs at six academic hospitals and specialised cancer centres in the Netherlands. The questionnaire addressed: identification and estimation of inconvenience, toxicity, psychosocial distress, and benefits of trial participation to patients; identification and estimation of benefits to future patients and medical science; assessment of the trial's RBR; and assessment of its ethical acceptability.RESULTS: Most IRB members expected trial participation to involve fairly or very serious inconvenience, fairly severe to sometimes life-threatening toxicity, and serious psychological and social consequences. Conversely, the perceived likelihood of benefits to patients was modest. Most regarded the study as important, and the balance between risks and benefits to be favourable, and believed that the protocol should be approved. The IRB members' final judgement on the trial's ethical acceptability was significantly correlated with their RBR assessment of the protocol.CONCLUSIONS: Because most patients who participate in clinical trials hope this will prolong their lives, it is suggested that patient information should better describe the anticipated benefits-for example, the likelihood of prolonging life. This would allow patients to make decisions regarding participation based on realistic expectations.

ethics,medical ethics,social issues,social sciences, biomedical
Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

Ezekiel J. Emanuel,Anne Wood,Alan Fleischman,Angela Bowen,Kenneth A. Getz,Christine Grady,Carol Levine,Dale E. Hammerschmidt,Ruth Faden,Lisa Eckenwiler,Carianne Tucker Muse,Jeremy Sugarman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00008

IF: 39.2

2004-08-17

Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract:The oversight of research involving human participants is widely believed to be inadequate. The U.S. Congress, national commissions, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Institute of Medicine, numerous professional societies, and others are proposing remedies based on the assumption that the main problems are researchers' conflict of interest, lack of institutional review board (IRB) resources, and the volume and complexity of clinical research. Developing appropriate reform proposals requires carefully delineating the problems of the current system to know what reforms are needed. To stimulate a more informed and meaningful debate, we delineate 15 current problems into 3 broad categories. First, structural problems encompass 8 specific problems related to the way the research oversight system is organized. Second, procedural problems constitute 5 specific problems related to the operations of IRB review. Finally, performance assessment problems include 2 problems related to absence of systematic assessment of the outcomes of the oversight system. We critically assess proposed reforms, such as accreditation and central IRBs, according to how well they address these 15 problems. None of the reforms addresses all 15 problems. Indeed, most focus on the procedural problems, failing to address either the structure or the performance assessment problems. Finally, on the basis of the delineation of problems, we outline components of a more effective reform proposal, including bringing all research under federal oversight, a permanent advisory committee to address recurrent ethical issues in clinical research, mandatory single-time review for multicenter research protocols, additional financial support for IRB functions, and a standardized system for collecting and disseminating data on both adverse events and the performance assessment of IRBs.

medicine, general & internal
An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009–2020), Successes and Challenges, Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Linda Kateb,Sawsan El-Jayousi,Maysa Al-Hussaini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211053234

2021-11-22

Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics

Abstract:The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.

ethics,medical ethics
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Clinical Practice: Practical Guidance for Institutional Review Boards

Justin M Bachmann,Molly A Shiflet,Julia R Palacios,Robert W Turer,Grace H Wallace,S Trent Rosenbloom,Todd W Rice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eahr.500216

Abstract:The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is increasingly common in routine clinical practice. As tools to quantify symptoms and health status, PROMs play an important role in focusing health care on outcomes that matter to patients. The uses of PROM data are myriad, ranging from clinical care to survey-based research and quality improvement. Discerning the boundaries between these use cases can be challenging for institutional review boards (IRBs). In this article, we provide a framework for classifying the three primary PROM use cases (clinical care, human subjects research, and quality improvement) and discuss the level of IRB oversight (if any) necessary for each. One of the most important considerations for IRB staff is whether PROMs are being used primarily for clinical care and thus do not constitute human subjects research. We discuss characteristics of PROMs implemented primarily for clinical care, focusing on: data platform; survey location; questionnaire length; patient interface; and clinician interface. We also discuss IRB oversight of projects involving the secondary use of PROM data that were collected during the course of clinical care, which span human subjects research and quality improvement. This framework provides practical guidance for IRB staff as well as clinicians who use PROMs as communication aids in routine clinical practice.
IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA)

Darren McCausland,Margaret Haigh,Philip McCallion,Mary McCarron

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1

2024-02-12

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.
Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement

Jessica Fishman,Catherine Yang,David Mandell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01153-9

2021-09-14

Implementation Science

Abstract:Abstract Background Implementation science studies often express interest in “attitudes,” a term borrowed from psychology. In psychology, attitude research has an established methodological and theoretical base, which we briefly summarize here. We then review implementation studies designed to measure attitudes and compare their definitions and methods with those from psychology. Methods A recent review identified 46 studies empirically examining factors associated with implementation. For each of these studies, we evaluated whether authors included attitudes as a construct of interest, and if so, whether and how the construct was defined, measured, and analyzed. Results Most of the articles (29/46 [63%]) mention attitudes as an implementation factor. Six articles include a definition of the construct. Nineteen studies were designed to measure attitudes but lacked clarity in describing how attitudes were measured. Those that explained their measurement approach used methods that differed from one another and from validated methods in social psychology. Few articles described associated analyses or provided results specific to attitudes. Despite the lack of specificity regarding relevant measurement, analysis, and results, the articles often included causal conclusions about the role of attitudes. Conclusions Attitudes may be an important construct to implementation scientists, but studies to date are ambiguous in their definitions of attitudes and inconsistent in the methods used to measure and analyze attitudes. We discuss how implementation studies can apply psychology’s standardized definitions, validated measurement approaches, and causal models that include attitudes. This application of attitude theory and methods could offer implementation research valuable scientific opportunities.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Assessing The Practice Of Data Quality Evaluation In A National Clinical Data Research Network Through A Systematic Scoping Review In The Era Of Real-World Data

Jiang Bian,Tianchen Lyu,Alexander Loiacono,Tonatiuh Mendoza Viramontes,Gloria Lipori,Yi Guo,Yonghui Wu,Mattia Prosperi,Thomas J George,Christopher A Harle,Elizabeth A Shenkman,William Hogan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocaa245

2020-01-01

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract:Objective: To synthesize data quality (DQ) dimensions and assessment methods of real-world data, especially electronic health records, through a systematic scoping review and to assess the practice of DQ assessment in the national Patient-centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet).Materials and Methods: We started with 3 widely cited DQ literature-2 reviews from Chan et al (2010) and Weiskopf et al (2013a) and 1 DQ framework from Kahn et al (2016)-and expanded our review systematically to cover relevant articles published up to February 2020. We extracted DQ dimensions and assessment methods from these studies, mapped their relationships, and organized a synthesized summarization of existing DQ dimensions and assessment methods. We reviewed the data checks employed by the PCORnet and mapped them to the synthesized DQ dimensions and methods.Results: We analyzed a total of 3 reviews, 20 DQ frameworks, and 226 DQ studies and extracted 14 DQ dimensions and 10 assessment methods. We found that completeness, concordance, and correctness/accuracy were commonly assessed. Element presence, validity check, and conformance were commonly used DQ assessment methods and were the main focuses of the PCORnet data checks.Discussion: Definitions of DQ dimensions and methods were not consistent in the literature, and the DQ assessment practice was not evenly distributed (eg, usability and ease-of-use were rarely discussed). Challenges in DQ assessments, given the complex and heterogeneous nature of real-world data, exist.Conclusion: The practice of DQ assessment is still limited in scope. Future work is warranted to generate understandable, executable, and reusable DQ measures.
Institutional Review Boards as Soft Governance Mechanisms of R&D: Governing the R&D of AI-based Medical Products

Antoni Lorente

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21552/aire/2024/1/6

2024-10-25

Abstract:Risk-based approaches to governance bear an ambiguous stance regarding the Research and Development stages of AI, for they the possibility of explicit risks before they are posed by a given finalised product. In this context, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) stand as unique governance mechanisms, capable of addressing the step from general research to concrete product development. However, IRBs face several challenges in governing AI-based medical products, including: (a) achieving consistency, (b) being exhaustive, (c) ensuring process transparency, and (d) reducing the existing capacity and knowledge asymmetry between different stakeholders. This article explores four governance levers that can be used to effect change, four governance entry-points throughout a product's lifecycle, and five different behaviours that IRBs should try to advance to ensure the effective governance of the R&D stages of AI-based medical projects. In doing so, IRBs can seize the unique opportunity they present to bring principles into practice, increase research quality, reduce governance costs, and bridge the knowledge gap between stakeholders.

Computers and Society
Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

Helen Snooks,Ashrafunnesa Khanom,Rokia Ballo,Peter Bower,Katherine Checkland,Jo Ellins,Gary A Ford,Louise Locock,Kieran Walshe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16013-y

IF: 4.5

2023-06-12

BMC Public Health

Abstract:Background: It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods: Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results: Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions: Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.
Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review

Daniel Crean,Bert Gordijn,Alan J Kearns

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-024-00493-1

2024-07-23

Abstract:Presented here is a systematic literature review of what the academic literature asserts about: (1) the stages of the ethical decision-making process (i.e. awareness, reasoning, motivation, and action) that are claimed to be improved or not improved by RI teaching and whether these claims are supported by evidence; (2) the measurements used to determine the effectiveness of RI teaching; and (3) the stage/s of the ethical decision-making process that are difficult to assess. Regarding (1), awareness was the stage most claimed to be amenable to improvement following RI teaching, and with motivation being the stage that is rarely addressed in the academic literature. While few, some sources claimed RI teaching cannot improve specific stages. With behaviour (action) being the stage referenced most, albeit in only 9% of the total sources, for not being amenable to improvement following RI teaching. Finally, most claims were supported by empirical evidence. Regarding (2), measures most frequently used are custom in-house surveys and some validated measures. Additionally, there is much debate in the literature regarding the adequacy of current assessment measures in RI teaching, and even their absence. Such debate warrants caution when we are considering the empirical evidence supplied to support that RI teaching does or does not improve a specific stage of the decision-making process. Regarding (3), only behaviour was discussed as being difficult to assess, if not impossible. In our discussion section we contextualise these results, and following this we derive some recommendations for relevant stakeholders in RI teaching.
The Role of Institutional Review Boards in Improving the Inclusion of Sex and Gender as Variables in Clinical Research

Barbara E. Bierer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2106/jbjs.24.00211

2024-09-19

Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery

Abstract:In orthopaedic clinical research, as in other fields, sex and gender-specific analyses are not consistently performed, despite evidence of sex differences in outcomes. Both institutional review boards (IRBs) and journal editors have a role in impacting the rate at which such analyses are performed and reported. The authority, responsibilities, and potential actions of IRBs are discussed herein, with the aim of setting investigator expectations and propelling changes to the study plan before the research is initiated.

surgery,orthopedics

Cyslabdan, a New Potentiator of Imipenem Activity against Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Produced by Streptomyces sp. K04-0144

Investigating Perceived Institutional Review Board Quality and Function Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool

Prioritizing Initiatives for Institutional Review Board (IRB) Quality Improvement

The Quality Improvement Review Board: An Innovative Approach to Oversight of Projects That Do Not Meet Criteria of Human Subject Research

How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?

Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis

Is Institutional Review Board (IRB) Doing Its Job Right? How To Assess This.

Board Quality Scorecards: Measuring Improvement

Improving Expanded Access in the United States: The Role of the Institutional Review Board

Steps toward a System of IRB Precedent: Piloting Approaches to Summarizing IRB Decisions for Future Use

The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by institutional review board (IRB) members: a case study

Oversight of Human Participants Research: Identifying Problems To Evaluate Reform Proposals

An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009–2020), Successes and Challenges, Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Routine Clinical Practice: Practical Guidance for Institutional Review Boards

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

Attitude theory and measurement in implementation science: a secondary review of empirical studies and opportunities for advancement

Assessing The Practice Of Data Quality Evaluation In A National Clinical Data Research Network Through A Systematic Scoping Review In The Era Of Real-World Data

Institutional Review Boards as Soft Governance Mechanisms of R&D: Governing the R&D of AI-based Medical Products

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

Impact and Assessment of Research Integrity Teaching: A Systematic Literature Review

The Role of Institutional Review Boards in Improving the Inclusion of Sex and Gender as Variables in Clinical Research