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

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.

Rationale and Study Checklist for Ethical Rejection of Participants on Crowdsourcing Research Platforms.

Online participant recruitment ("crowdsourcing") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

Doctoral graduates' attitudes toward scholarly work and Institutional Review Board and Quality Improvement Committee education and submission processes: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Educators are challenged to find better ways to prepare doctoral nursing students to conduct scholarly work involving human subjects. PURPOSE: To better understand doctoral nursing students' attitudes toward programmatic scholarly work and Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) education and submission processes. METHODS: Recent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Philosophy of Nursing (PhD) graduates were recruited using convenience sampling techniques to participate in this cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-methods pilot study. Data were collected using two researcher-developed instruments. DISCUSSION: Nineteen doctoral nursing students participated in this study. Students most often used a quantitative approach with health care providers to complete their scholarly work requirements. Both PhD and DNP participants were overall satisfied with the IRB/QIC content in the curricula and the submission process. Four themes were identified: (a) Efficiency, (b) Collaboration, (c) Faculty Mentorship, and (d) Areas for Improvement. CONCLUSION: Findings from this pilot study may be used to enhance IRB/QIC processes through revision of administrative processes and student education.

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

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.

Ethics guidelines for environmental epidemiologists: 2023 revision.

Recognition of the importance to environmental epidemiology of ethical and philosophical deliberation led, in 1996, to the establishment of Ethics Guidelines for the profession. In 1999, these guidelines were adopted by the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology. The guidelines were revised in 2012 and again in 2023 to ensure continued relevance to the major issues facing the field. Comprising normative standards of professional conduct, the guidelines are structured into four subsections: (1) obligations to individuals and communities who participate in research; (2) obligations to society; (3) obligations regarding funders/sponsors and employers; and (4) obligations to colleagues. Through the 2023 revision of the Ethics Guidelines, the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology seeks to ensure the highest possible standards of transparency and accountability for the ethical conduct of environmental epidemiologists engaged in research and public health practice.

Rapid Review of Therapy Protocols for Public Health Emergencies.

How research during a public health emergency is conducted is recognized as essential to the public health response to that emergency. Such research needs to undergo substantive and meaningful ethical review in a timely manner. Rapid ethical review may be accomplished through a number of mechanisms, including use of local rapid-response institutional review boards (IRBs). We describe use of such a model in the setting of the 2014 Ebola virus disease epidemic and the Rapid-Response IRB's subsequent transition to a multisite single IRB model during the current Covid-19 pandemic. The rapid-response review model is characterized by a small IRB with extensive use of alternate members with specific expertise and by close collaboration with the investigator in an iterative process.

Returning Clinically Relevant Research Results to Participants: Guidelines for Investigators and the IRB.

In 2019, the revised Common Rule required informed consent documents for research to include a statement about whether clinically relevant research results would be returned to research participants. While there are national discussions regarding the return of results, these do not provide specific guidance about how institutional review boards (IRBs) should address this issue. Through a year-long process involving IRB staff and leadership, science and bioethics faculty members, community IRB members, and others, Indiana University's human research protection program created a framework that offers a clear categorization of types of results for researchers to consider returning, provides language for informed consent documents, and describes an active but intentionally limited role for the IRB. In this article, we describe this framework and its rationale as a model for other universities and, more generally, as a model for balancing the need to protect human subjects with efforts to limit the burdens on researchers and the IRB.

Return of polygenic risk scores in research: Stakeholders' views on the eMERGE-IV study.

Research on polygenic risk scores (PRSs) for common, genetically complex chronic diseases aims to improve health-related predictions, tailor risk-reducing interventions, and improve health outcomes. Yet, the study and use of PRSs in clinical settings raise equity, clinical, and regulatory challenges that can be greater for individuals from historically marginalized racial, ethnic, and other minoritized communities. As part of the National Human Genome Research Institute-funded Electronic Medical Records and Genomics IV Network, we conducted online focus groups with patients/community members, clinicians, and members of institutional review boards to explore their views on key issues, including PRS research, return of PRS results, clinical translation, and barriers and facilitators to health behavioral changes in response to PRS results. Across stakeholder groups, our findings indicate support for PRS development and a strong interest in having PRS results returned to research participants. However, we also found multi-level barriers and significant differences in stakeholders' views about what is needed and possible for successful implementation. These include researcher-participant interaction formats, health and genomic literacy, and a range of structural barriers, such as financial instability, insurance coverage, and the absence of health-supporting infrastructure and affordable healthy food options in poorer neighborhoods. Our findings highlight the need to revisit and implement measures in PRS studies (e.g., incentives and resources for follow-up care), as well as system-level policies to promote equity in genomic research and health outcomes.

Impact of institutional review board stipulations on turnaround time for approvals of surgical studies.

BACKGROUND: We have examined the number and types of stipulations received following the submission of surgical study protocols to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for review, and their effect on turnaround time for approval. This analysis will enable our organization to improve the quality of applications and design of study protocols, which can streamline the approval process and increase efficiency of the startup phase for clinical research. METHODS: IRB stipulations for 48 surgical studies were analyzed. Various factors were assessed: surgical specialty, type of study by design, clinical trial phase, type of investigational product, type of IRB utilized (local or centralized), study complexity score, type of review (e.g., exempt, expedited, or full board), turnaround time, and number of stipulations received. Statistical analyses were performed to examine associations between the number/type of stipulations received during the IRB review process and any of the aforementioned study-related factors. RESULTS: For analyzed surgical studies, the number of stipulations allotted to a study and time taken for approval had moderate association with the complexity of the study. The turnaround time for approval was the highest for randomized, controlled trials and studies undergoing full board review. CONCLUSION: This study elucidates characteristics that are associated with increased time for IRB approval. Analysis of IRB stipulations can help improve the turnaround time for the approval process, increase efficiency of startup phase, and transition to execution phase faster, which will allow more time for enrollment of research subjects, and increase return on investment made into research and development programs.

Institutional Review Board Considerations for Clinical Trials.

To protect subjects who participate in human research, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play an important role in reviewing research and determining the validity of a study by comprehensively examining it for ethical issues, including invasiveness and management of personal information. They conduct regular and independent reviews to protect the health, rights, and welfare of research subjects. When we as researchers conduct clinical research, we must obtain IRB approval and submit our research for investigation of ethical issues before we begin.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Stakeholder Reflections on Implementing the National Institutes of Health's Policy on Single Institutional Review Boards.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH-funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in-depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.

Deprioritization of Ongoing Clinical Trials.

To be ethical, clinical trials must exhibit a favorable risk-benefit balance at the time of their initiation. However, in some cases, the expected value of a study decreases while the study is ongoing, due to developments outside of the study itself, such as findings from other studies or an otherwise shifting evidence base. While such situations are acknowledged in the research community, they have not received sufficient attention, given the high costs of uninformative studies, both in material and human capital. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic has exposed serious shortcomings with current approaches to monitoring studies for continued relevance and value. In this article, with reference to a case study from the Covid-19 pandemic, we identify and describe the importance and challenge of ensuring that clinical trials continue to exhibit scientific relevance and value once initiated. We explore the ethical dynamics of these situations and identify unresolved issues. While more empirical work is needed to ensure that proposed solutions to the issues are evidence based, we offer some provisional considerations that amount to a framework for approaching these challenging situations.

Protecting human subjects participating in research.

OBJECTIVES: Institutions conducting research involving human subjects establish institutional review boards (IRBs) and/or human research protection programs to protect human research subjects. Our objectives were to develop performance metrics to measure human research subject protections and to assess how well IRBs and human research protection programs are protecting human research subjects. METHODS: A set of five performance metrics for measuring human research subject protections was developed and data were collected through annual audits of informed consent documents and human research protocols at 107 Department of Veterans Affairs research facilities from 2010 through 2021. RESULTS: The proposed performance metrics were: local adverse events that were serious, unanticipated, and related or probably related to research, including those that resulted in hospitalization or death; where required informed consent was not obtained; required Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization was not obtained; non-exempt research was conducted without IRB approval; and research activities were continued during a lapse in IRB continuing reviews. Analysis of these performance metric data from 2010 through 2021 revealed that incident rates of all five performance metrics were very low; three showed a statistically significant trend of improvement ranging from 70% to 100%; and none of these five performance metrics deteriorated. CONCLUSIONS: Department of Veterans Affairs human research protection programs appeared to be effective in protecting human research subjects and showed improvement from 2010 through 2021. These proposed performance metrics will be useful in monitoring the effectiveness of human research protection programs in protecting human research subjects.

A Scoping Review Of The Literature Of Research Ethics Committees And Ethics Review Framework In Pakistan: What We Know And What We Still Need To Learn.

OBJECTIVE: To map literature on research ethics committees, institutional review boards and ethics review framework in Pakistan to identify key insights during public health emergencies and normal times. Method: The systematic scoping review was conducted in April 2022, and comprised literature search on PubMed, World Health Organisation Global Index Medicus and Summons databases for articles published between January 2005 and February 2022. Information extracted included authors' names, year of publication, title, study methodology, and key insights under the heads of challenges and solutions. Due to data heterogeneity, key themes were identified and analysed. RESULTS: Of the 2,190 studies initially identified, 21(0.95%) were subjected to full-text review, and, from among them, 9(45%) were analysed in detail. There were 4 key insights identified: research ethics committees and institutional review boards in Pakistan remain unregulated as they are currently not registered or accredited by a competent national-level authority; most members of such committees are not formally trained to implement the mandate; internal and external pressures hinder independent decision-making of such committees; and other issues hindering the functionality and performance of research ethics committees and institutional review boards. CONCLUSIONS: Despite existing publications calling for urgent policy and regulatory reforms, there is a dearth of literature and minimal policy actions underlying the fact that ethics review remains a neglected area in Pakistan.

"Dogs on Call": A Community-Engaged Human Subjects Training with Hospital Based Therapy Dog Teams.

Problem: As community-engaged research (CER) methods evolve, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) must adapt policies to facilitate CER research. This paper describes a novel collaboration between hospital-based therapy dog volunteer teams (CERs), academic faculty, and an IRB. Subjects: CER volunteers delivered a canine-assisted intervention to hospitalized adults in a clinical trial. Methods: IRB members and faculty developed a human subjects protections training tailored to the volunteer handlers' role as study interventionists including an interactive video- and discussion-based training with a knowledge assessment. Findings: Fourteen volunteer handlers were trained. The expedited IRB review period was similar to national average rates (18 days.) Volunteer handlers have conducted 107 research visits with little patient attrition. Conclusion: Tailored human subjects trainings facilitate research with interventions delivered by people who are not typically involved in research. Bespoke CER human subjects training requires collaboration between researchers and IRBs and flexibility in IRB policy regarding CER.

Raising concerns on questionable ethics approvals - a case study of 456 trials from the Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection.

BACKGROUND: The practice of clinical research is strictly regulated by law. During submission and review processes, compliance of such research with the laws enforced in the country where it was conducted is not always correctly filled in by the authors or verified by the editors. Here, we report a case of a single institution for which one may find hundreds of publications with seemingly relevant ethical concerns, along with 10 months of follow-up through contacts with the editors of these articles. We thus argue for a stricter control of ethical authorization by scientific editors and we call on publishers to cooperate to this end. METHODS: We present an investigation of the ethics and legal aspects of 456 studies published by the IHU-MI (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection) in Marseille, France. RESULTS: We identified a wide range of issues with the stated research authorization and ethics of the published studies with respect to the Institutional Review Board and the approval presented. Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different. Thirty-nine (39) did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings. We thus contacted the journals that published these articles and provide their responses to our concerns. It should be noted that, since our investigation and reporting to journals, PLOS has issued expressions of concerns for several publications we analyze here. CONCLUSION: This case presents an investigation of the veracity of ethical approval, and more than 10 months of follow-up by independent researchers. We call for stricter control and cooperation in handling of these cases, including editorial requirement to upload ethical approval documents, guidelines from COPE to address such ethical concerns, and transparent editorial policies and timelines to answer such concerns. All supplementary materials are available.

Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.

BACKGROUND: Adherence to ethical guidelines and regulations and protecting and respecting the dignity and autonomy of participants by obtaining a valid informed consent form (ICF) prior to participation in research are crucial; The subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF, Multiple signatures in other fields, ICF missing/missing signature, Incorrect ICF version Signed after modification, Correction tape used to correct signature, Impersonated signature, Non-research-member signature, however, ICFs are often not properly completed, which must be addressed. This study analyzed ICF signing errors and implemented measures to reduce or prevent these errors. METHODS: We used the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle to help improve the correctness and validity of ICF signing. RESULTS: Interim and final reports from January 2016 to February 2020 including 363 ICFs were studied. The total proportion of correct ICF signatures (200, 83.3%) following the PDCA intervention was significantly higher than that before the intervention (P < 0.05). Analysis of the types of signing error demonstrated that signature errors were significantly reduced after the intervention, particularly for subjects did not add signatures next to the corrections made to signatures or dates on the ICF (16, 6.7%) and impersonated signature (0; P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The proportions of other error types-multiple signatures in other fields, missing or unsigned ICF, incorrect signature order, incorrect ICF version, use of correction tape to correct signature, and non-medical profession members signing the ICF-did not differ significantly.