Reducing the Single IRB Burden: Streamlining Electronic IRB Systems.

Electronic institutional review board systems (eIRBs) have become an integral component in ensuring compliance with Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) and IRB requirements. Despite this, few of these systems are configured to administer the single IRB (sIRB) process mandated by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for multisite research. We interviewed 103 sIRB administrators, chairs, members, and staff members about their experiences with sIRB multisite research review. We observed three main obstacles to adapting existing eIRB systems to accommodate the sIRB process: (1) Existing systems are not designed for sIRBs and are not configured to administer sIRB responsibilities, (2) they are not interoperable, and (3) resources to improve existing systems are lacking. Our findings suggest that IRBs that act as an sIRB will need major changes to their electronic systems in order to accommodate sIRB processes. These difficulties threaten both the ability of IRBs to focus on ethical rather than bureaucratic problems and the efficiency of multisite trials.

When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function.

How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest: Findings From a National Interview Study.

PURPOSE: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are important ethical concerns because they may affect scientific decision making, research integrity, and the safety and fairness of studies. No research to date has examined COIs of single institutional review boards (sIRBs), which are now mandated by the National Institutes of Health, and will be by the revised Common Rule in 2020, for all multisite research. This study investigated how different types of sIRBs manage their own COIs by documenting existing processes for and comparing commercial, government, and academic sIRBs. METHOD: One hundred three personnel from 20 commercial, government, or academic sIRBs participated in semistructured interviews about their processes for and experiences with managing COIs when conducting multisite research review. RESULTS: Variability in COI management policies exist across types of sIRBs. Commercial sIRBs were aware of their own COIs given their for-profit model, and managed them by using firewalls, relying on external reviewers, and turning down potential clients. Government sIRBs described unique COIs stemming from the same agency funding the sIRB and the research being reviewed. They addressed these by discussing concerns about COIs, using firewalls, relying on nonaffiliated reviewers, and having broad COI policies. In contrast to commercial and government sIRBs, academic sIRBs did not report any specific policies to manage their COIs, which are similar to those of local IRBs. CONCLUSIONS: As sIRBs become increasingly common, researchers will need to weigh the different COIs inherent to each type of sIRB. Additionally, academic sIRBs may consider implementing specific policies for managing their COIs.

Local Knowledge and Single IRBs for Multisite Studies: Challenges and Solutions.

New federal policies require single IRB review for multisite studies, but many questions remain about how these IRBs will use local knowledge. The findings from our study, the first to examine how single IRBs perceive needs for local knowledge, reveal several challenges. Study respondents identified four potentially relevant types of local knowledge: about culture and linguistics, about geography and socioeconomics, about the researchers, and about the institutions. Such knowledge can potentially be obtained through local sites, but single IRBs may be unaware of potentially relevant local information, and lack of informal relationships may impede single IRBs' reviews and interactions with researchers. While a recent, commonly used, standardized single-IRB form asks three basic questions about local information, our findings suggest potential needs for additional information and, thus, have important implications for practice, policy, and research.

Reliance agreements and single IRB review of multisite research: Concerns of IRB members and staff.

The new National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for Multi-Site Research was adopted primarily to simplify and speed the review of complex multisite clinical trials. However, speeding review requires overcoming a number of obstacles. Perhaps the most substantial obstacle is the time and effort needed to develop reliance agreements among the participating sites. We conducted 102 semistructured interviews with sIRB personnel, including directors, chairs, reviewers, and staff, from 20 IRBs that acted as sIRBs for multisite research, including 6 commercial/independent sIRBs, and 10 university-based academic and 4 federal sIRBs. Almost without exception, the interviewees agreed that reliance agreements were complex, difficult to develop, and time-consuming. A major problem for relying sites was that different agreements specified different responsibilities for the relying sites. Attitudes differed about whether these problems will be resolved as IRB staff and managers become more experienced with sIRBs. However it is clear that the process of developing reliance agreements must be simplified. Federal assistance in standardizing at least some sections of reliance agreements might reduce the difficulties involved.

The meaning of work for young adults diagnosed with serious mental health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Despite the increased recognition of the importance of work for social and psychological well-being, the meaning of work for young adults with serious mental health conditions is understudied. This study uses a participatory action research approach to explore the economic, social and psychological significance of work for young adults diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities. METHOD: We conducted 57 one-hour semistructured interviews with young adults between the ages of 18 to 30 enrolled in 3 well established vocational support programs. NVivo 8 software was used to sort and systematically organize the interview data. RESULTS: Young adults with psychiatric disabilities work in part for financial independence from their family but also for additional reasons. Work provides the opportunity for social engagement and feelings of contributing to society as a whole. For some young adults, work provides the opportunity to enhance their self-esteem, self-confidence, and a positive self-image. For Latino young adults, work provides a way to cope with their mental illness. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Our findings provide pertinent information for vocational rehabilitation services, recovery programs, and even parents on the importance of connecting young adults to jobs that enhance self-esteem and self-efficacy and are in line with their personal interests. Future research is needed to understand potential cultural and age differences in the meaning of work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).

A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Clubhouse Model of Psychosocial Rehabilitation.

The Clubhouse Model has been in existence for over sixty-five years; however, a review that synthesizes the literature on the model is needed. The current study makes use of the existing research to conduct a systematic review of articles providing a comprehensive understanding of what is known about the Clubhouse Model, to identify the best evidence available, as well as areas that would benefit from further study. Findings are summarized and evidence is classified by outcome domains. Fifty-two articles met the selection criteria of Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT's), quasi-experimental studies, or observational studies for domains of employment (N = 29); quality of life/satisfaction (N = 10); reductions in psychiatric hospitalization(s) (N = 10); social relationships (N = 10); education (N = 3); and health promotion activities (N = 2). RCT results support the efficacy of the Clubhouse Model in promoting employment, reducing hospitalization(s), and improving quality of life. Quasi-experimental and observational studies offer support in education and social domains. The findings from this review indicate that Clubhouses are a promising practice but additional studies using rigorous methods that report the strength of the outcomes are needed to evaluate Clubhouse programs with fidelity to the Clubhouse Model.

Reducing therapeutic misconception: A randomized intervention trial in hypothetical clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Participants in clinical trials frequently fail to appreciate key differences between research and clinical care. This phenomenon, known as therapeutic misconception, undermines informed consent to clinical research, but to date there have been no effective interventions to reduce it and concerns have been expressed that to do so might impede recruitment. We determined whether a scientific reframing intervention reduces therapeutic misconception without significantly reducing willingness to participate in hypothetical clinical trials. METHODS: This prospective randomized trial was conducted from 2015 to 2016 to test the efficacy of an informed consent intervention based on scientific reframing compared to a traditional informed consent procedure (control) in reducing therapeutic misconception among patients considering enrollment in hypothetical clinical trials modeled on real-world studies for one of five disease categories. Patients with diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease, head/neck cancer, breast cancer, and major depression were recruited from medical clinics and a clinical research volunteer database. The primary outcomes were therapeutic misconception, as measured by a validated, ten-item Therapeutic Misconception Scale (range = 10-50), and willingness to participate in the clinical trial. RESULTS: 154 participants completed the study (age range, 23-87 years; 92.3% white, 56.5% female); 74 (48.1%) had been randomized to receive the experimental intervention. Therapeutic misconception was significantly lower (p = 0.004) in the scientific reframing group (26.4, 95% CI [23.7 to 29.1] compared to the control group (30.9, 95% CI [28.4 to 33.5], and remained so after controlling for education (p = 0.017). Willingness to participate in the hypothetical trial was not significantly different (p = 0.603) between intervention (52.1%, 95% CI [40.2% to 62.4%]) and control (56.3%, 95% CI [45.3% to 66.6%] groups. CONCLUSIONS: An enhanced educational intervention augmenting traditional informed consent led to a meaningful reduction in therapeutic misconception without a statistically significant change in willingness to enroll in hypothetical clinical trials. Additional study of this intervention is required in real-world clinical trials.

Factors Influencing IACUC Decision Making: Who Leads the Discussions?

Decisions about the appropriate use of animals in research are largely made by Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs). Several commentators claim that scientists exert excessive influence on IACUC decisions. We studied 87 protocol reviews from 10 IACUCs to assess whether any group of participants appeared to dominate the protocol discussions. Audio recordings of the meetings were coded to capture the topics of the discussions. We found that animal research scientists made the largest total number of topic mentions while community members made the fewest. On a per person basis, chairpersons and attending veterinarians made the most mentions. Scientists presented the largest number of protocols, and the subsequent discussions tended to contain the same topics mentioned in the presentations. The large number of protocols presented by scientists and their total number of comments made during protocol discussions suggest that scientists may significantly influence IACUC decision making.

Enrolling in Clinical Research While Incarcerated: What Influences Participants' Decisions?

As a 2006 Institute of Medicine report highlights, surprisingly little empirical attention has been paid to how prisoners arrive at decisions to participate in modern research. With our study, we aimed to fill this gap by identifying a more comprehensive range of factors as reported by prisoners themselves during semistructured interviews. Our participants described a diverse range of motives, both favoring and opposing their eventual decision to join. Many are well-recognized considerations among nonincarcerated clinical research participants, including a desire for various forms of personal benefit, altruism, and concern about study risks and inconveniences. However, a number of influences seem unique to prisoners. Participants did not report that they were not coerced into enrolling, and they have even been under pressure not to enroll. However, many sought to enroll in order to obtain access to better health care, raising a concern about whether they were unfairly exploited.

An exploratory study of therapeutic misconception among incarcerated clinical trial participants.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic misconception, the misunderstanding of differences between research and clinical care, is widely prevalent among non-incarcerated trial participants. Yet little attention has been paid to its presence among individuals who participate in research while incarcerated. METHODS: This study examined the extent to which seventy-two incarcerated individuals may experience therapeutic misconception about their participation in one of six clinical trials, and its correlation with participant characteristics and potential influences on research participation. RESULTS: On average, participants endorsed 70% of items suggestive of therapeutic misconception. The tendency toward therapeutic misconception was significantly higher among: African Americans and Latinos compared to Whites; older and less educated participants; enrollment in a substance abuse-related trial; and correlated with a belief that the trial was the only way to obtain needed treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic misconception may be particularly high among select incarcerated individuals and is associated with a perceived lack of treatment options. Further examination of therapeutic misconception among incarcerated research participants is needed.

Decision Making and the IACUC: Part 1- Protocol Information Discussed at Full-Committee Reviews.

IACUC protocols can be reviewed by either the full committee or designated members. Both review methods use the principles of the 3 Rs (reduce, refine, replace) as the overarching paradigm, with federal regulations and policies providing more detailed guidance. The primary goal of this study was to determine the frequency of topics discussed by IACUC during full-committee reviews and whether the topics included those required for consideration by IACUC (for example, pain and distress, number of animals used, availability of alternatives, skill and experience of researchers). We recorded and transcribed 87 protocol discussions undergoing full-committee review at 10 academic institutions. Each transcript was coded to capture the key concepts of the discussion and analyzed for the frequency of the codes mentioned. Pain and distress was the code mentioned most often, followed by the specific procedures performed, the study design, and the completeness of the protocol form. Infrequently mentioned topics were alternatives to animal use or painful or distressful procedures, the importance of the research, and preliminary data. Not all of the topics required to be considered by the IACUC were openly discussed for all protocols, and many of the discussions were limited in their depth.

Why is therapeutic misconception so prevalent?

Therapeutic misconception (TM)-when clinical research participants fail to adequately grasp the difference between participating in a clinical trial and receiving ordinary clinical care-has long been recognized as a significant problem in consent to clinical trials. We suggest that TM does not primarily reflect inadequate disclosure or participants' incompetence. Instead, TM arises from divergent primary cognitive frames. The researchers' frame places the clinical trial in the context of scientific designs for assessing intervention efficacy. In contrast, most participants have a cognitive frame that is personal and focused primarily on their medical problems. To illustrate this, we draw on interview material from both clinical researchers and participants in clinical trials. We suggest that reducing TM requires encouraging subjects to adjust their frame, not just add information to their existing frame. What is necessary is a scientific reframing of participation in a clinical trial.

Motivations of Patients with Diabetes to Participate in Research.

BACKGROUND: Research on the motivations of research participants has focused primarily on vulnerable populations at risk of exploitation, and there is little research on the motivations and reasons of general medical patients participating in research. Given a significant increase in research studies recruiting participants with diabetes, we sought to better understand the motivations of patients with diabetes considering a general medical research protocol. METHODS: The analyses presented here compare the reasoning and willingness to participate in a hypothetical research study of medically ill subjects (patients with diabetes, n=51) with non-ill (n=57) subjects. Responses on the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research (MacCAT-CR) were correlated with demographic variables and scores on the Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) and Short-Form-36 (SF-36). RESULTS: Overall, 44% of the group with diabetes and 56% of the comparison group indicated a willingness to participate in the research study. The reasons diabetic and comparison groups offered for willingness or unwillingness to participate in research did not differ significantly. 75% mentioned reasons related to treatment, 63% altruism; none mentioned money. Of those patients with diabetes who would not participate in research, 94% cited risk, and 89% expressed an aversion to research. CONCLUSIONS: The present study suggests that when research is not related to their diagnosis, persons with diabetes do not differ significantly from non-ill comparison subjects in their motivations to participate in research. Given the similarity of our subjects' motivations to those of other medically ill populations, it may be that investigators can now focus more closely on the decision-making characteristics of their patients involved in clinical research rather than their diagnoses.

What the ANPRM missed: additional needs for IRB reform.

Institutional Review Boards are mandated to carry out the requirements of the Common Rule, and it is widely agreed that they are appropriate and necessary mechanisms to ensure the ethical conduct of human research. In this paper, we suggest that the changes proposed in ANPRM, although generally helpful, fail to take into consideration how IRBs actually review applications and therefore do not adequately address some of the problems that may be leading to ineffective human subject protection.

The utility of patients' self-perceptions of violence risk: consider asking the person who may know best.

OBJECTIVE The authors compared the predictive accuracy of two risk assessment methods that are feasible to use in routine clinical settings: brief risk assessment tools and patients' self-perceptions of risk. METHODS In 2002-2003, clinical interviewers met with 86 high-risk inpatients with co-occurring mental and substance use disorders (excluding schizophrenia) to carefully elicit the patients' global rating of their risk of behaving violently and to complete two brief risk assessment tools-the Clinically Feasible Iterative Classification Tree (ICT-CF) and the Modified Screening Tool (MST). Two months after discharge, patients were reinterviewed in the community to assess their involvement in violence. RESULTS Patients' self-perceptions of risk performed quite well in predicting serious violence (area under the curve [AUC]=.74, sensitivity=50%), particularly compared with the ICT-CF (AUC=.59, sensitivity=40%) and the MST (AUC=.66, sensitivity=30%). Self-perceived risk also added significant incremental utility to these tools in predicting violence. CONCLUSIONS Patients' self-perceptions hold promise as a method for improving risk assessment in routine clinical settings. Assuming it replicates and generalizes beyond the research context, this finding encourages a shift away from unaided clinical judgment toward a feasible method of risk assessment built on patient collaboration.