An IRB is a committee within a university or other organization receiving federal funds to conduct research that reviews research proposals. The IRB reviews the proposals before a project is submitted to a funding agency to determine if the research project follows the ethical principles and federal regulations for the protection of human subjects. The IRB has the authority to approve, disapprove or require modifications of these projects.
An IRB consists of at least five members of varying backgrounds. IRB members should have the professional experience to provide appropriate scientific and ethical review. An IRB must have at least one scientist member and at least one member whose primary concerns are nonscientific. Additionally, there must be one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution (a community representative). The IRB should strive for appropriate representation in gender and racial and cultural heritage as well.
In 1974, the Department of Health Education and Welfare promulgated the regulations on the Protection of Human Subjects that established the IRB. IRBs are administered on a federal level by the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), an office within the Department of Health and Human Services. OHRP assists IRBs in their work and receives and investigates claims of inappropriate research practices. The institution that the IRB serves provides administrative support for its activities including designation of an individual within the institution to oversee research and IRB functions. The institution also files an "Assurance" with the federal government that describes the procedures and guidelines that the IRB must follow.
IRBs are charged with reviewing all federally funded research projects involving human subjects with a few exceptions (e.g., reviews of records or surveys in which subjects cannot be individually identified or when disclosure of subjects' responses could not place them at risk of criminal or civil liability and is not damaging to subjects financially, vocationally or socially). However, based on the procedures set forth in the Institutional Assurance, the IRB may review all research projects, regardless of the source of funding.
Before an investigator can receive federal funds to conduct a research project, the protocol (research procedures) is reviewed by the IRB. The researcher provides the IRB with all the necessary materials to conduct their review including a full description of the proposed project, materials the subjects will use (surveys, questionnaires, tests, etc.), a description of the manner in which subjects will be recruited and provide consent to participate in the project (including a consent form), and how the subjects' confidentiality will be maintained. The IRB examines all these materials to determine if the research participants are adequately protected. The IRB's consideration is based primarily on weighing the risks and benefits of the research. Risks may be physical, psychological, social or economic. Benefits include both those to the individual research participant and to society as a whole. The IRB also considers the population being studied — Does it require additional protections? Would this population assess the risks and benefits differently?
After examining the materials the researcher provides to the IRB, they must decide if the benefits of the research have been maximized and the risks minimized, and make a final determination whether the benefits justify the risks to the subjects. If the IRB finds that this is the case, they may approve the protocol. Alternatively, the IRB may request that the researcher make specific changes to the procedures and approve the protocol contingent on these changes or ask that the protocol be revised and resubmitted. Finally, the IRB may decide to disapprove of the project. Institutional officials may disapprove research protocols that have IRB approval, but they may not grant approval of research projects that have been disapproved by the IRB. In addition to reviewing new research protocols, IRBs also review continuing projects or those that have changes in their procedures. Continuing projects are reviewed yearly (or more often if the IRB feels it is necessary).
The Code of Federal Regulations requires that IRBs give special consideration to some classes of subjects: children, prisoners, pregnant women, mentally disabled persons, and economically or educationally disadvantaged persons. The IRB carries out this charge in a number of ways. In many cases, the IRB may approve of research with these subjects only when it involves minimal risk or when the benefits apply to the subject directly. Additionally, if the IRB frequently reviews protocols involving one of the special groups, they may have a community member whose primary interests are with one of these groups.
The institution and the IRB maintain records of IRB activities including copies of the research protocols reviewed, minutes from meetings and correspondence. All records must be made available for review by OHRP. The content I just read:
APA strongly encourages the use of psychological science in policy-making decisions and vigorously defends the field from partisan attacks. 1. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:541-550. [Google Scholar] 2. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45CFR, part 46. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/45cfr46.html. Accessed January 5, 2015. 3. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21CFR, part 56. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=56. Accessed January 5, 2015. 4. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 45CFR.46.101 (h). [PubMed] 5. US Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21 CFR 312.120; guidance for industry and FDA staff FDA acceptance of foreign clinical studies not conducted under an IND frequently asked questions.US Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM294729.pdf. Accessed April 12, 2015. 6. US Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP). International compilation of human subjects standards. US Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcompilation.html. Accessed March 1, 2015. 7. ICH guidelines: E6. good clinical practice. International Conference on Harmonisation website. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/efficacy-single/article/good-clinical-practice.html. Accessed February 2, 2015. 8. Riis P. Letter from...Denmark. Planning of scientific-ethical committees. BMJ. 1977;2(6080):173-174. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 9. The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Department of Health Education and Welfare; 1979. DHEW Publication OS 78-0012 1978. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 10. Bowen A. Models of institutional review board function. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:552-559. [Google Scholar] 11. Office of Human Subjects Protection. Advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) for revision to Common Rule. US Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/anprm2011page.html. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015. 12. Emanuel EJ, Menikoff J. Reforming the regulations governing research with human subjects. N Engl J Med. 2011;365(12):1145-1150. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 13. Office of Human Research Protections. IRBs and assurances. US Department of Health and Human Services website. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/assurances/index.html. Accessed February 2, 2015. 14. Office of Budget: appropriations history by institute/center (1938 to present). National Institutes of Health, Office of Budget website. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html. Accessed March 3, 2015. 15. Pharmaceutical R&D and the evolving market for prescription drugs. Congressional Budget Office website. http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/106xx/doc10681/10-26-drugr&d.pdf. 2009. Accessed March 3, 2015. 16. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group’s report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 17. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs. 2013 Metrics on Human Research Protection Program Performance. Washington, DC: Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs; 2014. [Google Scholar] 18. Commercial institutional review boards (IRBs). Citizens for Responsible Care and Research website. http://www.circare.org/info/commercialirb.htm. Accessed March 3, 2015. 19. Fost N, Levine RJ. The dysregulation of human subjects research. JAMA. 2007;298(18):2196-2198. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 20. Burman WJ, Reves RR, Cohn DL, Schooley RT. Breaking the camel’s back: multicenter clinical trials and local institutional review boards. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134(2):152-157. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 21. Gunsalus CK, Bruner EM, Burbules NC, et al. Mission creep in the IRB world. Science. 2006;312(5779):1441. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 22. Weil C, Rooney L, McNeilly P, Cooper K, Borror K, Andreason P. OHRP compliance oversight letters: an update. IRB. 2010;32(2):1-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 23. Infectious Diseases Society of America. Grinding to a halt: the effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;49(3):328-335. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 24. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 25. Whitney SN, Alcser K, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Principal investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5(2):68-72. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 26. Lemonick M, Goldstein A, Park A. Human guinea pigs. Time. April 22, 2002. [Google Scholar] 27. Gilbert S. Trials and tribulations. Hastings Cent Rep. 2008;38(2):14-18. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 28. McCarthy C. The origins and policies that govern institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:550. [Google Scholar] 29. Cohen IG, Lynch HF, eds. Introduction. Human Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:2. [Google Scholar] 30. Association of American Medical Colleges.Alternative Models of IRB Review Workshop summary. Washington, DC: Department of Health and Human Services; 2005. [Google Scholar] 31. Summary of the 2006 National Conference on Alternative IRB Models: optimizing human subject protection. Association of American Medical Colleges website. https://www.aamc.org/download/75240/data/irbconf06rpt.pdf. November 2006. Accessed January 5, 2015. 32. Mascette AM, Bernard GR, Dimichele D, et al. Are central institutional review boards the solution? The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Working Group’s report on optimizing the IRB process. Acad Med. 2012;87(12):1710-1714. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 33. Federman D, Hanna K, Rodriguez L, eds. Responsible Research: A Systems Approach to Protecting Research Participants. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2003. [Google Scholar] 34. Klitzman R, Appelbaum PS. Research ethics. To protect human subjects, review what was done, not proposed. Science. 2012;335(6076):1576-1577. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 35. Wood A, Grady C, Emanuel EJ. Regional ethics organizations for protection of human research participants. Nat Med. 2004;10(12):1283-1288. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 36. Kim S, Ubel P, DeVries R. Pruning the regulatory tree. Nature. 2009;457(29):534-535. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 37. Check DK, Weinfurt KP, Dombeck CB, Kramer JM, Flynn KE. Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):560-567. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 38. Ledford H. Human-subjects research: trial and error. Nature. 2007;448(7153):530-532. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 39. Menikoff J. The paradoxical problem with multiple-IRB review. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(17):1591-1593. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 40. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, et al. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):282-291. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 41. Wilfond BS, Magnus D, Antommaria AH, et al. The OHRP and SUPPORT. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(25):e36. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 42. Fanaroff JM. Ethical support for surfactant, positive pressure, and oxygenation randomized trial (SUPPORT). J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1498-1499. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 43. Speers M. Evaluating the effectiveness of institutional review boards. In: Emanuel E, Grady C, Crouch R, Lie R, Miller F, Wendler D, eds. The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2008:560-568. [Google Scholar] 44. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. N Engl J Med. 2002;346(18):1405-1408. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 45. National Cancer Institute Central IRB Initiative. National Cancer Institute website. https://ncicirb.org/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015. 46. Graham DG, Spano MS, Manning B. The IRB challenge for practice-based research: strategies of the American Academy of Family Physicians National Research Network (AAFP NRN). J Am Board Fam Med. 2007;20(2):181-187. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 47. Office of Research and Development. VA central institutional review board (IRB). US Department of Veterans Affairs website. http://www.research.va.gov/programs/pride/cirb. Accessed March 1, 2015. 48. BRANY institutional review board services. Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY) website. http://www.branyirb.com. Accessed February 3, 2015. 49. Kaufmann P, O’Rourke PP. Central institutional review board review for an academic trial network. Acad Med. 2015;90(3):321-323. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 50. Transformation solutions: about us. WIRB-Copernicus Group website. http://wcgclinical.com/about-us/transformational-solutions. Accessed March 10, 2015. 51. Why choose Chesapeake IRB? Chesapeake IRB website. https://www.chesapeakeirb.com. Accessed March 10, 2015. 52. Tip sheet 24 relying on an external IRB. Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs website. http://www.aahrpp.org/apply/resources/tip-sheets?docSortBy=Updated&docFilterBy=&docStart=5. Accessed March 10, 2015. See also http://www.niaid.nih.gov/LabsAndResources/resources/toolkit/Pages/faq.aspx, https://irb.research.chop.edu/irb-reliance-agreements, and others. 53. Slutsman J, Hirschfeld S. A federated model of IRB review for multisite studies: a report on the National Children’s Study federated IRB initiative. IRB. 2014;36(6):1-6. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 54. Request for comments on the draft NIH policy on the use of a single institutional review board for multi-site research. National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-15-026.html. Published December 3, 2014. Accessed March 2, 2015. 55. Empirical research on ethical issues related to central IRBs and consent for research using clinical records and data (R01). National Institutes of Health website. http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-14-002.html and http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfa-files/RFA-OD-15-002.html. Accessed April 12, 2015. 56. Flynn KE, Hahn CL, Kramer JM, et al. Using central IRBs for multicenter clinical trials in the United States. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(1):e54999. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 57. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9:6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 58. Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3-19. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 59. Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Arnold R, et al. How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Acad Med. 2012;87(7):969-974. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 60. Shah S, Whittle A, Wilfond B, Gensler G, Wendler D. How do institutional review boards apply the federal risk and benefit standards for pediatric research? JAMA. 2004;291(4):476-482. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 61. Grady C. Do IRBs protect human research participants? JAMA. 2010;304(10):1122-1123. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 62. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Further analysis and recommendations: recommendation 5. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015. 63. Wagner T, Murray C, Goldberg J, Adler J, Abrams J. Costs and benefits of the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(4):662-666. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 64. Sugarman J, Getz K, Speckman JL, Byrne MM, Gerson J, Emanuel EJ; Consortium to Evaluate Clinical Research Ethics. The cost of institutional review boards in academic medical centers. N Engl J Med. 2005;352(17):1825-1827. [PubMed] [Google Scholar] 65. Hyman D. Institutional review boards: is this the least worst we can do? Northwestern University Law Review. 2007;101(2):749-774. [Google Scholar] 66. Taylor P. Introduction to part II—protection of vulnerable populations. In: Cohen G, Lynch H, eds. Human Subjects Research Regulation, Perspectives on the Future. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2014:63. [Google Scholar] 67. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Recommendation 2. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015. 68. US Code of Federal Regulations at 45CFR.46 and 21CFR56. 69. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues. Executive summary. In: Moral Science: Protecting Participants in Human Subjects Research. http://bioethics.gov/sites/default/files/Moral%20Science%20June%202012.pdf. 2011. Accessed February 10, 2015. Page 2Selected US Regulatory Requirements for IRBs (Paraphrased)
|
Which of the following statements best describes the purpose of institutional review boards irbs )?
zusammenhängende Posts
Urheberrechte © © 2024 frojeostern Inc.
