Development proposals of Human Research Protection Program.

BACKGROUND: China's ethics committees alone are unable to meet the growing need for human participant protection. Several scandals in recent years indicate weaknesses in the protection of human participants in China. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study is to summarize the status and problems of human research protection program in China and to explore its establishment proposals at national and hospital levels. RESEARCH DESIGN: To conduct literature retrieval, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Document Database, and English databases Web of Science and PubMed were searched; laws, guidelines, and regulations were also searched on web by Google and Chinese search engine Baidu. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS: No data were collected from human participants, and ethical review was not required. FINDINGS: There are problems for China's Human Research Protection Program, such as weak relevant legal systems, insufficient administrative supervision, and incompetent ethics committee capacities. To fully protect human participants, China should promote the development of Human Research Protection Program, which can formulate ethics-related laws, improve regulations for the protection of the safety and rights of human participants, strengthen supervision, and enforce compensation for human participants. Owing to the frequency with which human participants are recruited in hospitals in China, hospitals can utilize existing ethics committees and establish data and safety monitoring committees, quality control, fund and contract management, and conflict of interest management offices. DISCUSSION: As a growing program, it remains necessary to learn from the experience of developed countries with high ethics standards and reformulate them to fit China's conditions to explore potential future development. The program will also be an experience for other developing countries. CONCLUSION: Human Research Protection Program can strengthen communication and coordination among various hospital departments to effectively protect the rights and welfare of human participants.

Harmonization and streamlining of research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials.

The oversight of research involving human participants is a complex process that requires institutional review board review as well as multiple non-institutional review board institutional reviews. This multifaceted process is particularly challenging for multisite research when each site independently completes all required local reviews. The lack of inter-institutional standardization can result in different review outcomes for the same protocol, which can delay study operations from start-up to study completion. Hence, there have been strong calls to harmonize and thus streamline the research oversight process. Although the institutional review board is only one of the required reviews, it is often identified as the target for harmonization and streamlining. Data regarding variability in decision-making and interpretation of the regulations across institutional review boards have led to a perception that variability among institutional review boards is a primary contributor to the problems with review of multisite research. In response, many researchers and policymakers have proposed the use of a single institutional review board of record, also called a central institutional review board, as an important remedy. While this proposal has merit, the use of a central institutional review board for multisite research does not address the larger problem of completing non-institutional review board institutional review in addition to institutional review board review­and coordinating the interdependence of these reviews. In this article, we describe the overall research oversight process, distinguish between institutional review board and institutional responsibilities, and identify challenges and opportunities for harmonization and streamlining. We focus on procedural and organizational issues and presume that the protection of human subjects remains the paramount concern. Suggested modifications of institutional review board processes that focus on time, efficiency, and consistency of review must also address what effect such changes have on the quality of review. We acknowledge that assessment of quality is difficult in that quality metrics for institutional review board review remain elusive. At best, we may be able to assess the time it takes to review protocols and the consistency across institutions.

Assessing the quality of human research protection programs to improve protection of human subjects participating in clinical trials.

INTRODUCTION: Institutions conducting research involving human subjects establish human research protection programs to ensure the rights and welfare of research participants as well as to meet ethical and regulatory requirements. It is important to determine whether human research protection programs have achieved these objectives. METHODS: The Department of Veterans Affairs has developed quality indicators and annually collected human research protection program quality indicator data from its 108 research facilities since 2010. RESULTS: Analysis of Department of Veterans Affairs human research protection program quality indicator data revealed that facilities using affiliated university institutional review boards performed as well as those using their own Department of Veterans Affairs institutional review boards and that facilities with small research programs, that is, less than 50 human research protocols, performed at least as well as those with larger research programs. These quality indicator data also provided Department of Veterans Affairs facilities with valuable information for quality improvement. Many of these quality indicators have improved in subsequent years, and none has deteriorated. Lapse rates in institutional review board continuing reviews remained high and relatively constant at above 6.0% over a 4-year period from 2010 through 2013. DISCUSSION: Future efforts should be directed at developing a set of human research protection program quality indicators truly reflecting the quality of human research protection programs that are applicable to both Department of Veterans Affairs and non-Department of Veterans Affairs institutions and determining whether high-quality human research protection programs as measured using these quality indicators translate into better human subject protections.

How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?

BACKGROUND: Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP "quality, effectiveness, and efficiency" (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. METHODS: We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization's approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. RESULTS: Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. CONCLUSIONS: The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.

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.

Using single IRB consultations to meet the educational needs of investigative teams.

Single IRB (SIRB) consultation resources were established by the Utah Trial Innovation Center to assist and educate investigative teams prior to the submission of funding applications for multisite, cooperative research. Qualitative analysis of the written consultation materials and meeting minutes revealed the most common areas of education needed by investigative teams, including (a) the differences and relationships between the IRB and a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP); (b) the main phases of the SIRB process; and (c) the use of technology platforms for documentation of SIRB review processes. For investigative teams who are inexperienced with using a SIRB, such consultation in the pre-award period is likely to fill in knowledge gaps and improve the study start-up process.

Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: What Do We Know?

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are permitted by regulation to seek assistance from outside experts when reviewing research applications that are beyond the scope of expertise represented in their membership. There is insufficient understanding, however, of when, why, and how IRBs consult with outside experts, as this practice has not been the primary focus of any published literature or empirical study to date. These issues have important implications for IRB quality. The capacity IRBs have to fulfill their mission of protecting research participants without unduly hindering research is influenced by IRBs' access to and use of the right type of expertise to review challenging research ethics, regulatory, and scientific issues. Through a review of the regulations and standards permitting IRBs to draw on the competencies of outside experts and through examination of the needs, strategies, challenges, and concerns related to doing so, we identify critical gaps in the existing literature and set forth an agenda for future empirical research.

Developing Quality and Efficiency of Institutional Review Board Review Under a Human Research Protection Program at a Leading Hospital in Central Southern China: A Descriptive Analysis of the First Three Years.

This study analyzes the Institutional Review Board (IRB) quality and efficiency at a leading hospital in Central Southern China, under the first three years of a Human Research Protection Program (HRPP). We conducted a descriptive, retrospective analysis from 2015 through 2017. We extracted characteristics from the protocol archive in duplicate. Of 396 protocols submitted, 98% were approved. Mean protocol review time decreased from 23 to 15 calendar days, 344 serious adverse events SAEs were reviewed, and 93 conflicts of interest (COIs) were disclosed. IRB quality and efficiency mechanisms improved. Remaining needs include increased monitoring of COIs and unanticipated problem involving risks to subjects or others, distinctions between research types, and cooperation with specialized committees.

Making Metrics Meaningful: How Human Research Protection Programs Can Efficiently and Effectively Use Their Data.

Human research protection programs (HRPP) generate an abundance of data on performance, capacity, and compliance. When used effectively, this information can be instrumental in helping HRPPs meet programmatic and institutional goals, demonstrate growth and success, and improve the HRPP overall. Metrics must be grounded in professional insight so that HRPPs can pair analytics with strategies for future action or improvement. The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how high-performing HRPPs develop, adopt, and implement a metrics framework that benefits everyday operations and produces real-world results. Through a three-part thematic framework (of insight, data, and action) and by providing case examples and actionable strategies, this article will address how HRPPs iteratively develop and characterize their metrics, build a metrics framework that leverages both quantitative and qualitative data to validate outcomes, and activate human insight to produce meaningful communication, visualization, and dissemination of data.

Implementing a Central IRB Model in a Multicenter Research Network.

Implementing the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) new single institutional review board (IRB) policy has caused a paradigm shift in IRB review across the country. IRBs and human research protection programs are looking more closely at their processes for ceding review and developing procedures to handle local review when relying on a single IRB. This article describes an NIH-funded network that proactively instituted a central IRB (CIRB) in 2012, anticipating the NIH future mandate. Lessons learned are described. There was a steep learning curve for IRBs and participating sites. IRB submission workload burden shifted from study teams to the data coordinating center, which created new workflow challenges, especially preparing hundreds of consent documents centrally. Despite difficulties encountered with CIRB review, this network is now fully functioning under a CIRB model. Further review and experience are needed to determine whether this shift in IRB review has eliminated duplicative review or regulatory burden from study teams.

Assessing the Quality and Performance of Human Research Protection Programs to Guide Compliance Oversight Activities.

Routine on-site reviews should focus primarily on facilities that are at risk of harming human subjects. Using human research protection program performance metric data from 107 facilities, we defined a facility to be at risk when one of its noncompliance/incident rates was among the top three highest rates of that performance metric. Based on 14 performance metrics with noncompliance and incidents in 2017, 27 facilities were identified to be at risk. These 27 facilities at risk, while constituting only 25% of all facilities, contributed to 70% ± 25% ( M ± SD; range = 32%-100%) of all reported noncompliance/incidents. Thus, performance metric data can be used to guide compliance oversight activities.

Effectiveness of Human Research Protection Program Performance Measurements.

We analyzed human research protection program performance metric data of all Department of Veterans Affairs research facilities obtained from 2010 to 2016. Among a total of 25 performance metrics, 21 (84%) showed improvement, four (16%) remained unchanged, and none deteriorated during the study period. The overall improvement from these 21 performance metrics was 81.1% ± 18.7% (mean ± SD), with a range of 30% to 100%. The four performance metrics that did not show improvement all had initial noncompliance/incidence rates of <1.0%, ranging from 0% to 0.98%. The initial noncompliance/incidence rates of the 21 performance metrics that showed improvement ranged from 0.05% to 60%. However, of the 21 performance metrics that showed improvement, 10 had initial noncompliance/incidence rates of <1.0%, suggesting that improvement could be achieved even with a very low initial noncompliance/incidence rate. We conclude that performance measurement is an effective tool in improving the performance of human research protection programs.