IRB reliance: An informatics approach.

Multi-site Institutional Review Board (IRB) review of clinical research projects is an important but complex and time-consuming activity that is hampered by disparate non-interoperable computer systems for management of IRB applications. This paper describes our work toward harmonizing the workflow and data model of IRB applications through the development of a software-as-a-service shared-IRB platform for five institutions in South Carolina. Several commonalities and differences were recognized across institutions and a core data model that included the data elements necessary for IRB applications across all institutions was identified. We extended and modified the system to support collaborative reviews of IRB proposals within routine workflows of participating IRBs. Overall about 80% of IRB application content was harmonized across all institutions, establishing the foundation for a streamlined cooperative review and reliance. Since going live in 2011, 49 applications that underwent cooperative reviews over a three year period were approved, with the majority involving 2 out of 5 institutions. We believe this effort will inform future work on a common IRB data model that will allow interoperability through a federated approach for sharing IRB reviews and decisions with the goal of promoting reliance across institutions in the translational research community at large.

Development and pilot testing of a video-assisted informed consent process.

The informed consent process for research has come under scrutiny, as consent documents are increasingly long and difficult to understand. Innovations are needed to improve comprehension in order to make the consent process truly informed. We report on the development and pilot testing of video clips that could be used during the consent process to better explain research procedures to potential participants. Based on input from researchers and community partners, 15 videos of common research procedures/concepts were produced. The utility of the videos was then tested by embedding them in mock-informed consent documents that were presented via an online electronic consent system designed for delivery via iPad. Three mock consents were developed, each containing five videos. All participants (n = 61) read both a paper version and the video-assisted iPad version of the same mock consent and were randomized to which format they reviewed first. Participants were given a competency quiz that posed specific questions about the information in the consent after reviewing the first consent document to which they were exposed. Most participants (78.7%) preferred the video-assisted format compared to paper (12.9%). Nearly all (96.7%) reported that the videos improved their understanding of the procedures described in the consent document; however, the comprehension of material did not significantly differ by consent format. Results suggest videos may be helpful in providing participants with information about study procedures in a way that is easy to understand. Additional testing of video consents for complex protocols and with subjects of lower literacy is warranted.