Principal Investigator Views of the IRB System
نویسندگان
چکیده
We undertook a qualitative e-mail survey of federally-funded principal investigators of their views of the US human subjects protection system, intended to identify the range of investigator attitudes. This was an exploratory study with a 14% response rate. Twenty-eight principal investigators responded; their comments were analyzed to show underlying themes, which are here presented along with supporting quotations.There was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning. Some researchers felt that the system is effective and serves its purpose well. Of those who support the system, some endorse its methods, purpose, and daily functioning, as they experience it, without reservation. Others, while expressing some frustration, feel that the purpose is important and their local IRB does its best to make a difficult system work well.Those investigators who were more harshly critical commented on multiple flaws in the system, including (1) consent forms that are inappropriate and incomprehensible, (2) an emphasis on minutiae, and (3) concern with protecting the institution more than research subjects. Respondents told us that the IRB system is a particular burden for research in neurology, emergency medical conditions, repositories, and social sciences in general; a more comprehensive study might identify other problematic areas. Significant concern was expressed about the cost, inefficiency, and irrationality of IRB review. The IRB system works well for some researchers, but our results indicate that other investigators feel the costs outweigh the benefits.
منابع مشابه
TITLE: Clinically Practical Magnetic Resonance Protocol for Improved Specificity in Breast Cancer Diagnosis PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR:
14 annual meeting of the International Society for Magnetic Resonance inMedicine, Seattle WA, May 6-12, 2006. Approved IRB protocol Approved consent form Approved advertising pamphlet
متن کاملWhat must research subjects be told regarding the results of completed randomized trials?
ederal research regulations require investigators to inform research subjects of “significant new findings developed during the course of the research which may relate to the subject’s willingness to continue participation.”1 However, the determination of what is, and what is not, relevant to disclose is open to interpretation and potential ethical conflict. The recently reported results of a m...
متن کاملAn IRB's consent form survey.
Recently, the University of Pittsburgh's Biomedical Institutional Review Board (IRB) undertook a survey to determine certain aspects of the informed consent procedure. We chose one new protocol from each principal investigator who submitted one or more protocols for IRB approval. The time period surveyed was July 1, 1982, to June 30, 1983, which should have uncovered research recently completed...
متن کاملLatent variable modeling and its implications for institutional review board review: variables that delay the reviewing process
BACKGROUND To investigate the factors related to approval after review by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), the structure equation model was used to analyze the latent variables 'investigators', 'vulnerability' and 'review process' for 221 proposals submitted to our IRB. METHODS The vulnerability factor included vulnerable cases, and studies that involved drug tests and genetic analyses. T...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- International Journal of Medical Sciences
دوره 5 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008