Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: Is there a better way?

Jennifer L. Gold, Carolyn S Dewa

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

68 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. The following paper examines the issue of whether the current system for ethics review of multisite health services research protocols is adequate, or whether there exist alternative methods that should be considered. Principal Findings. (1) Investigators at different sites in a multisite project often have very different experiences with respect to the requirements and requests of the review board. Other problems include the waste of time and resources spent on document preparation for review boards, and delays in the commencement of research activities. (2) There are several possible reasons why there is variability in ethics review. These include the absence of standardized forms, differences in the background and experiences of board members, the influence of institutional or professional culture, and regional thinking. (3) Given the limited benefits derived from the variability in recommendations of multiple boards and the numerous problems encountered in seeking ethics approval from multiple boards suggest that some sort of reform is in order. Conclusions. The increasing number of multisite, health services research studies calls for a centralized system of ethics review. The local review model is simply not conducive to multisite studies, and jeopardizes the integrity of the research process. Centralized multisite review boards, together with standardized documents and procedure, electronic access to documentation, and training for board members are all possible solutions. Changes to the current system are necessary not only to facilitate the conduct of multisite research, but also to preserve the integrity of the ethics approval process in general.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)291-307
Number of pages17
JournalHealth Services Research
Volume40
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Health Services Research
Research Ethics Committees
Ethics
health service
moral philosophy
integrity
Research
research process
Documentation
documentation
experience
Research Personnel
electronics
reform
resources

Keywords

  • Ethics
  • Institution review boards (IRBs)
  • Multisite research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research : Is there a better way? / Gold, Jennifer L.; Dewa, Carolyn S.

In: Health Services Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 02.2005, p. 291-307.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{a2697a6cbce14bc2a4aaee336b03ea9d,
title = "Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: Is there a better way?",
abstract = "Objective. The following paper examines the issue of whether the current system for ethics review of multisite health services research protocols is adequate, or whether there exist alternative methods that should be considered. Principal Findings. (1) Investigators at different sites in a multisite project often have very different experiences with respect to the requirements and requests of the review board. Other problems include the waste of time and resources spent on document preparation for review boards, and delays in the commencement of research activities. (2) There are several possible reasons why there is variability in ethics review. These include the absence of standardized forms, differences in the background and experiences of board members, the influence of institutional or professional culture, and regional thinking. (3) Given the limited benefits derived from the variability in recommendations of multiple boards and the numerous problems encountered in seeking ethics approval from multiple boards suggest that some sort of reform is in order. Conclusions. The increasing number of multisite, health services research studies calls for a centralized system of ethics review. The local review model is simply not conducive to multisite studies, and jeopardizes the integrity of the research process. Centralized multisite review boards, together with standardized documents and procedure, electronic access to documentation, and training for board members are all possible solutions. Changes to the current system are necessary not only to facilitate the conduct of multisite research, but also to preserve the integrity of the ethics approval process in general.",
keywords = "Ethics, Institution review boards (IRBs), Multisite research",
author = "Gold, {Jennifer L.} and Dewa, {Carolyn S}",
year = "2005",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "291--307",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research

T2 - Is there a better way?

AU - Gold, Jennifer L.

AU - Dewa, Carolyn S

PY - 2005/2

Y1 - 2005/2

N2 - Objective. The following paper examines the issue of whether the current system for ethics review of multisite health services research protocols is adequate, or whether there exist alternative methods that should be considered. Principal Findings. (1) Investigators at different sites in a multisite project often have very different experiences with respect to the requirements and requests of the review board. Other problems include the waste of time and resources spent on document preparation for review boards, and delays in the commencement of research activities. (2) There are several possible reasons why there is variability in ethics review. These include the absence of standardized forms, differences in the background and experiences of board members, the influence of institutional or professional culture, and regional thinking. (3) Given the limited benefits derived from the variability in recommendations of multiple boards and the numerous problems encountered in seeking ethics approval from multiple boards suggest that some sort of reform is in order. Conclusions. The increasing number of multisite, health services research studies calls for a centralized system of ethics review. The local review model is simply not conducive to multisite studies, and jeopardizes the integrity of the research process. Centralized multisite review boards, together with standardized documents and procedure, electronic access to documentation, and training for board members are all possible solutions. Changes to the current system are necessary not only to facilitate the conduct of multisite research, but also to preserve the integrity of the ethics approval process in general.

AB - Objective. The following paper examines the issue of whether the current system for ethics review of multisite health services research protocols is adequate, or whether there exist alternative methods that should be considered. Principal Findings. (1) Investigators at different sites in a multisite project often have very different experiences with respect to the requirements and requests of the review board. Other problems include the waste of time and resources spent on document preparation for review boards, and delays in the commencement of research activities. (2) There are several possible reasons why there is variability in ethics review. These include the absence of standardized forms, differences in the background and experiences of board members, the influence of institutional or professional culture, and regional thinking. (3) Given the limited benefits derived from the variability in recommendations of multiple boards and the numerous problems encountered in seeking ethics approval from multiple boards suggest that some sort of reform is in order. Conclusions. The increasing number of multisite, health services research studies calls for a centralized system of ethics review. The local review model is simply not conducive to multisite studies, and jeopardizes the integrity of the research process. Centralized multisite review boards, together with standardized documents and procedure, electronic access to documentation, and training for board members are all possible solutions. Changes to the current system are necessary not only to facilitate the conduct of multisite research, but also to preserve the integrity of the ethics approval process in general.

KW - Ethics

KW - Institution review boards (IRBs)

KW - Multisite research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13644256038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13644256038&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x

M3 - Review article

C2 - 15663714

AN - SCOPUS:13644256038

VL - 40

SP - 291

EP - 307

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

IS - 1

ER -