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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Assessment of patients' satisfaction with the postanesthesia care unit service at University Hospital in Al Khobar, KSA.

Objectives: The quality of health care is individually and subjectively reflected through patients' level of satisfaction, as well as the optimality and effectiveness of the provided postoperative pain management. The provision of postanesthesia care unit (PACU) service in hospitals has led to overall positive outcomes, in addition to the enhancement of patients' satisfaction with the provided pain management service. This study assessed patients' level of satisfaction with PACU service at a university hospital and discussed different factors that might have contributed to the level of satisfaction. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was carried out among patients after being discharged from PACU. The study took place at King Fahad Hospital of the University in Al Khobar, KSA between November 2021 and February 2022. The data were collected using a three-section predesigned questionnaire. Results: Two hundred patients were included in this study. Nearly all patients (95.5%) were satisfied with the provided pain management service. Almost all patients (99.5%) indicated that the PACU staff was courteous and professional during the entire pain management service. More patients complained about pain before using analgesia and this difference was statistically significant (Z = 8.642; p < 0.001). The satisfaction rate was significantly higher in the older age group (>45 years) (Z = 2.114; p = 0.035), in patients with American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) 3 physical status (H = 13.130; p = 0.001), and those with a previous surgical history (Z = 2.139; p = 0.032). Conclusion: This study concluded that the level of patients' satisfaction with PACU service was high, and established a statistically significant association with age, ASA score, and previous surgical history. Healthcare providers should consider patient education and effective communication to increase patients' satisfaction level and improve the overall quality of care.

Innovative Bariatric Procedures and Ethics in Bariatric Surgery: the IFSO Position Statement.

With the rise in obesity and bariatric procedures worldwide, there has been a surge in new and innovative procedures that has been increasingly offered to patients. In this position statement, IFSO highlights the importance of surgical ethics in innovation and when offering new procedures. Furthermore, the task force reviewed the current literature to describe which procedures can be offered as mainstream outside research protocols versus those that are still investigational and need further data.

Big Health Data Research and Group Harm: The Scope of IRB Review.

Much of precision medicine is driven by big health data research-the analysis of massive datasets representing the complex web of genetic, behavioral, environmental, and other factors that impact human well-being. There are some who point to the Common Rule, the regulation governing federally funded human subjects research, as a regulatory panacea for all types of big health data research. But how well does the Common Rule fit the regulatory needs of this type of research? This article suggests that harms that may arise from artificial intelligence and machine-learning technologies used in big health data research-and the increased likelihood that this research will affect public policy-mean it is time to consider whether the current human research regulations prohibit comprehensive, ethical review of big health data research that may result in group harm.

Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness.

BACKGROUND: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). PURPOSE: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. PROCESS: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. OUTCOME MEASURE: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. DISCUSSION: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.

Getting the Most out of Consent: Patient-Centered Consent for an Acute Stroke Trial.

Informed consent for clinical trials in acute stroke is characterized by challenges related to urgency, cognitive impairment, and geographical separation. Context-appropriate approaches are needed for this setting. We conducted a mixed-methods project involving focus groups and interviews as well as collaboration with a patient advisory panel and a central institutional review board (CIRB) to design and implement a patient-driven consent process for a multicenter trial incorporating adaptive randomization. Remote consent was recognized as challenging but acceptable. Adaptive randomization was viewed positively, but significant potential for misunderstanding was appreciated. Collaboration between the patient advisory panel and the CIRB resulted in a shortened, more patient-centered consent form that was approved at all sites with few modifications. An information sheet was developed as a resource for patients and surrogates after enrollment. Collaboration between investigators, patient partners, and a CIRB can facilitate innovation and implementation of patient-centered, context-appropriate consent strategies.

Data Safety and Monitoring Boards Should Be Required for Both Early- and Late-Phase Clinical Trials.

Phase I and II clinical trials increasingly combine therapeutic and toxicity endpoints. Recently, therapeutic agents have even achieved U.S. Food and Drug Agency approval based on early phase trials alone. These developments point to new challenges in assuring the safety of human research subjects and patients. Given their size and use of real-world patients, phase III studies warrant independent monitoring by a Drug Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB). Requirements should also be extended to include many phase I and II clinical trials. Measures should be taken to establish and standardize minimum qualifications for service on a DSMB.

An Approach to Reviewing Local Context for Exception from Informed Consent Trials Using a Single IRB.

In the context of emergency research, researchers can ask the institutional review board (IRB) to waive the regulatory requirement that individuals provide informed consent when enrolling in research studies. A requirement of the waiver of informed consent is that the reviewing IRB must review and approve a community consultation and public disclosure plan. It is critical that an IRB serving as the single IRB (sIRB) for multisite research be thoroughly versed in the local context concerns for each participating site to determine whether the site's community is being adequately consulted about the research in which individuals will be enrolled under an exception to the informed consent requirement. We designed an sIRB review model for evaluating site-specific community consultation plans that included a local evaluation and feedback step, and we piloted the model with a four-site, pediatric exception from informed consent (EFIC) clinical trial. We identified three key roles for the model: the sIRB, the investigators, and the representative of the institution's human research protection program (HRPP). We successfully collected the information and local input needed to evaluate each site's community consultation plan and applied the information to a thorough IRB review, despite the geographic distance between the study site and the sIRB.

The ethics of quality improvement studies: do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

Clinical research involving human subjects and quality improvement (QI) projects share a common goal of seeking to improve human health, whether by directly changing the standard of care (research) or by improving the process(es) by which that care is delivered (QI). Whether a QI project requires informed consent (written or oral) is a function of the risk-benefit analysis of the study; such a determination should not be at the sole discretion of the investigators, but should come from an appropriately constituted review board with expertise in the ethics of biomedical research.

Steps toward a System of IRB Precedent: Piloting Approaches to Summarizing IRB Decisions for Future Use.

Institutional review boards (IRBs) have been criticized for inconsistency and lack of transparency in decision-making, problems that undermine both trust in their ability to protect human research participants and respect for their decisions among researchers. The absence of robust documentation of their decisions and the inability or unwillingness to share those decisions together represent a missed opportunity for IRBs to learn from one another and advance debates about challenging ethical issues. The concept of IRB precedent, modeled upon the system of legal precedent, has been proposed as a potential solution to these problems. In theory, an IRB faced with a review decision could look back at previous IRB decisions, either its own or those of other boards, made in similar studies or circumstances to guide the present decision. Some IRBs attempt this informally within their institution, but few examples of a structured system of IRB precedent have been described in the literature, and none has been widely adopted. This article describes a pilot project to summarize IRB decisions in a way that could facilitate their use as precedent by creating a documentation tool that meets four criteria-comprehensiveness, validity, searchability, and efficiency. Though this process turned out to be more challenging than expected, we identified key features of such a tool that holds promise for future development and could promote more consistent, robust IRB decision-making and advance discourse in human research ethics.

Demystifying the Institutional Review Board.

Perioperative nurses are responsible for generating and using evidence to improve patient care. To protect human participants during research activities, government regulations enacted after widely publicized research misconduct specify that institutions receiving federal funds must have an institutional review board (IRB) comprising at least five members. Board members have many responsibilities, including completing a thorough review of each section of the application and attachments (eg, consent documents). To expedite the IRB approval processes, applicants should create and submit a well-written application. Applicants should understand that the application addresses the important ethical concepts of respect for persons, beneficence, and justice. Quality improvement activities (ie, local activities that seek to improve patient care or clinical outcomes) differ from research activities that focus on creating new knowledge. Depending on the purpose, design, and generalizability of a quality improvement project, the applicant may need to submit the project to the IRB for approval.

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.

Creating a Research Ethics Consultation Service: Issues to Consider.

This article provides pragmatic advice for organizations interested in creating a research ethics consultation service (RECS). A robust RECS has the potential to build capacity among investigators to identify and consider the ethical issues they encounter while conducting their research. Determining whether to establish an RECS should begin with an institutional-needs assessment that includes three key questions: What are the current resources available to research teams to navigate ethical concerns that arise from their research? Is there a demand or perceived need for more resources? Is there institutional support (financial and otherwise) to establish and maintain an RECS? If this results in the decision to establish the consultation service, relevant institutional stakeholders must be identified and consulted, and personnel with the requisite skills recruited. The next step is to establish an RECS and build the infrastructure to process and respond to requests. The RECS's long-term sustainability will depend on a stable source of funding and a mechanism to receive constructive feedback to ensure that the service is meeting the institutional needs it set out to address.

Getting Interdisciplinary Teams into the Field: Institutional Review Board Preapproval and Multi-Institution Authorization Agreements for Rapid Response Disaster Research.

This article describes an interdisciplinary community resilience research project and presents a case study that supports bringing researchers together before a disaster to develop plans, procedures, and preapproved Institutional Review Board (IRB) protocols. In addition, this article explains how researchers from various academic institutions and their federal agency partners can effectively collaborate by creating an IRB Authorization Agreement (IAA). Such preparations can support interdisciplinary rapid response disaster fieldwork that is timely, ethically informed, and scientifically rigorous. This fieldwork preplanning process can also advance interdisciplinary team formation and data collection efforts over the long term.

Institutional Review Board Preparedness for Disaster Research: a Practical Approach.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Disasters are becoming more common and challenge national and global resiliency and response efforts. As a result, government agencies have increased interest in disaster research to understand their environmental impact and health-related consequences. With the research field greatly expanding, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) are being asked to review research protocols aimed at assessing health risks, exposures, and outcomes from disaster survivors. Few IRBs have experience reviewing disaster research protocols. This article describes approaches for IRB preparedness in reviewing disaster research. RECENT FINDINGS: From a human research protections perspective, primary attention has focused on vulnerability of individuals and/or populations affected by a disaster who may serve as research participants [3, 4]. From our review of the current literature, there is a lack of best practices and/or guidance for IRBs in the review of disaster research protocols. The growth of the disaster research field has brought more attention to potential ethical concerns of disaster research studies. Disaster survivors, responders, and those that assist in cleanup and remedial efforts may be left with significant unmet needs and long-term physical and emotional challenges as a result of their experiences. It is important for IRBs and investigators to collaboratively address how best to protect the welfare of individuals and communities affected by a disaster. A new approach is needed to systematically consider the various factors relevant to an assessment of human research protection issues following disasters.