Impact of institutional review board stipulations on turnaround time for approvals of surgical studies.

BACKGROUND: We have examined the number and types of stipulations received following the submission of surgical study protocols to the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) for review, and their effect on turnaround time for approval. This analysis will enable our organization to improve the quality of applications and design of study protocols, which can streamline the approval process and increase efficiency of the startup phase for clinical research. METHODS: IRB stipulations for 48 surgical studies were analyzed. Various factors were assessed: surgical specialty, type of study by design, clinical trial phase, type of investigational product, type of IRB utilized (local or centralized), study complexity score, type of review (e.g., exempt, expedited, or full board), turnaround time, and number of stipulations received. Statistical analyses were performed to examine associations between the number/type of stipulations received during the IRB review process and any of the aforementioned study-related factors. RESULTS: For analyzed surgical studies, the number of stipulations allotted to a study and time taken for approval had moderate association with the complexity of the study. The turnaround time for approval was the highest for randomized, controlled trials and studies undergoing full board review. CONCLUSION: This study elucidates characteristics that are associated with increased time for IRB approval. Analysis of IRB stipulations can help improve the turnaround time for the approval process, increase efficiency of startup phase, and transition to execution phase faster, which will allow more time for enrollment of research subjects, and increase return on investment made into research and development programs.

Which Benefits Can Justify Risks in Research?

Research ethics committees (RECs) evaluate whether the risk-benefit ratio of a study is acceptable. Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) are a novel approach for conducting clinical trials that potentially bring important benefits for research, including several collateral benefits. The position of collateral benefits in risk-benefit assessments is currently unclear. DCTs raise therefore questions about how these benefits should be assessed. This paper aims to reconsider the different types of research benefits, and their position in risk-benefit assessments. We first propose a categorization of research benefits, based on the types of benefits that can be distinguished from the literature and ethical guidelines. Secondly, we will reconsider the position of collateral benefits. We argue that these benefits are not fundamentally different from other benefits of research and can therefore be included in risk-benefit assessments of DCTs.

Doctoral graduates' attitudes toward scholarly work and Institutional Review Board and Quality Improvement Committee education and submission processes: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Educators are challenged to find better ways to prepare doctoral nursing students to conduct scholarly work involving human subjects. PURPOSE: To better understand doctoral nursing students' attitudes toward programmatic scholarly work and Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) education and submission processes. METHODS: Recent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Philosophy of Nursing (PhD) graduates were recruited using convenience sampling techniques to participate in this cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-methods pilot study. Data were collected using two researcher-developed instruments. DISCUSSION: Nineteen doctoral nursing students participated in this study. Students most often used a quantitative approach with health care providers to complete their scholarly work requirements. Both PhD and DNP participants were overall satisfied with the IRB/QIC content in the curricula and the submission process. Four themes were identified: (a) Efficiency, (b) Collaboration, (c) Faculty Mentorship, and (d) Areas for Improvement. CONCLUSION: Findings from this pilot study may be used to enhance IRB/QIC processes through revision of administrative processes and student education.

Preclinical efficacy in investigator's brochures: Stakeholders' views on measures to improve completeness and robustness.

AIMS: Research ethics committees and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator's brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that the reporting of preclinical evidence presented in IBs does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, research ethics committee members, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs. METHODS: This study was preregistered (https://osf.io/nvzwy/). We used purposive sampling and invited stakeholders to participate in an online semistructured interview between March and June 2021. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis. We used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats matrix to categorize our findings. RESULTS: Twenty-seven international stakeholders participated. The interviewees pointed to several strengths and opportunities to improve completeness and robustness, mainly more transparent and systematic justifications for the included studies. However, weaknesses and threats were mentioned that could undermine efforts to enable a more thorough assessment: The interviewees stressed that current review practices are sufficient to ensure the safe conduct of first-in-human trials. They feared that changes to the IB structure or review process could overburden stakeholders and slow drug development. CONCLUSION: In principle, more robust decision-making processes align with the interests of all stakeholders and with many current initiatives to increase the translatability of preclinical research and limit uninformative or ill-justified trials early in the development process. Further research should investigate measures that could be implemented to benefit all stakeholders.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance.

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Consideration and Disclosure of Group Risks in Genomics and Other Data-Centric Research: Does the Common Rule Need Revision?

Harms and risks to groups and third-parties can be significant in the context of research, particularly in data-centric studies involving genomic, artificial intelligence, and/or machine learning technologies. This article explores whether and how United States federal regulations should be adapted to better align with current ethical thinking and protect group interests. Three aspects of the Common Rule deserve attention and reconsideration with respect to group interests: institutional review board (IRB) assessment of the risks/benefits of research; disclosure requirements in the informed consent process; and criteria for waivers of informed consent. In accordance with respect for persons and communities, investigators and IRBs should systematically consider potential group harm when designing and reviewing protocols, respectively. Research participants should be informed about any potential group harm in the consent process. We call for additional public discussion, empirical research, and normative analysis on these issues to determine the right regulatory and policy path forward.

Institutional review boards in Saudi Arabia: the first survey-based report on their functions and operations.

BACKGROUND: Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions. RESULTS: Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review. CONCLUSION: Saudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies.

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.

A Scoping Review Of The Literature Of Research Ethics Committees And Ethics Review Framework In Pakistan: What We Know And What We Still Need To Learn.

OBJECTIVE: To map literature on research ethics committees, institutional review boards and ethics review framework in Pakistan to identify key insights during public health emergencies and normal times. Method: The systematic scoping review was conducted in April 2022, and comprised literature search on PubMed, World Health Organisation Global Index Medicus and Summons databases for articles published between January 2005 and February 2022. Information extracted included authors' names, year of publication, title, study methodology, and key insights under the heads of challenges and solutions. Due to data heterogeneity, key themes were identified and analysed. RESULTS: Of the 2,190 studies initially identified, 21(0.95%) were subjected to full-text review, and, from among them, 9(45%) were analysed in detail. There were 4 key insights identified: research ethics committees and institutional review boards in Pakistan remain unregulated as they are currently not registered or accredited by a competent national-level authority; most members of such committees are not formally trained to implement the mandate; internal and external pressures hinder independent decision-making of such committees; and other issues hindering the functionality and performance of research ethics committees and institutional review boards. CONCLUSIONS: Despite existing publications calling for urgent policy and regulatory reforms, there is a dearth of literature and minimal policy actions underlying the fact that ethics review remains a neglected area in Pakistan.

Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives.

The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as "procedural ethics" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as "ethics in practice." While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.

Patients' and primary carers' views on clozapine treatment for schizophrenia: A cross-sectional study in Qatar.

Subjective views of clozapine treatment among patients with schizophrenia in the Middle East and North African MENA Region have not previously been assessed. Globally, few studies have assessed the views of carers to clozapine treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional survey, using a clinician administered structured interview, of patients with schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder prescribed clozapine in Qatar, and their primary carers. Participants were asked to rate clozapine against prior their antipsychotic treatment in terms of specific benefits and side effects. Forty-two patients and 33 carers participated in the study. Of the patients, two thirds were male, approximately half were Qatari and the mean age was 33.9 years. Patients and carers rated clozapine as superior to prior antipsychotic treatment on all 7 potential benefits inquired about. The greatest perceived benefit was improved mood. Patients rated clozapine as less likely to cause extrapyramidal side effects but more likely to cause 18 other potential side effects compared to prior antipsychotic treatment, with the greatest difference being for nocturnal salivation, increased appetite, and constipation. Nearly half of patients (48 %) and two thirds of carers (64 %) stated that they would have preferred to start clozapine earlier in their illness. Sixty percent of patients and 37 % of carers regarded the information that they had received from health professionals on clozapine as inadequate. Less than half of patients and approximately-two thirds of carers had adequate knowledge of haematological monitoring for clozapine. Generally, there were significantly positive correlation between patients and carers regarding the overall side effects of clozapine treatment. Likewise, improvement in hearing voices paranoid thoughts correlated with improved quality of life. In summary, the results show that patients and carers appreciate the benefits of clozapine despite its side effects being problematic. The results support clozapine being offered earlier in treatment and services providing more information on clozapine to patients and carers.

A Research Ethics Framework for the Clinical Translation of Healthcare Machine Learning.

The application of artificial intelligence and machine learning (ML) technologies in healthcare have immense potential to improve the care of patients. While there are some emerging practices surrounding responsible ML as well as regulatory frameworks, the traditional role of research ethics oversight has been relatively unexplored regarding its relevance for clinical ML. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive research ethics framework that can apply to the systematic inquiry of ML research across its development cycle. The pathway consists of three stages: (1) exploratory, hypothesis-generating data access; (2) silent period evaluation; (3) prospective clinical evaluation. We connect each stage to its literature and ethical justification and suggest adaptations to traditional paradigms to suit ML while maintaining ethical rigor and the protection of individuals. This pathway can accommodate a multitude of research designs from observational to controlled trials, and the stages can apply individually to a variety of ML applications.

Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.

BACKGROUND: Performance evaluation is vital for IRB operations. As the number of IRBs and their responsibilities in reviewing and supervising clinical research grow in China, there is a significant need to evaluate their performances. To date, little research has examined IRB performance within China. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perspectives and experiences of IRB employees and researchers to (1) understand the current status of IRBs; (2) compare collected results with those of other countries; and (3) identify shortcomings to improve IRB performance. METHODS: This study was conducted in China from October 2020 to September 2021, using an online survey with the IRB-researcher assessment tool-Chinese version. RESULTS: 757 respondents were included in the analysis and classified into IRB employees, researchers, or those who are both IRB employees and researchers. Overall, the score for an ideal IRB was significantly higher than that of an actual IRB. Compared to the US National Validation study, Chinese participants and American participants both agree and differ in their perspectives on the most and least important ideal items. CONCLUSION: This investigation provides a benchmark of the perceived performance of actual IRBs in China. IRBs in China can be precisely adjusted by targeting identified areas of weakness to improve their performances.

Professional and academic profile of the Brazilian research ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Brazil is among the sixteen countries that conducts the most clinical trials in the world. It has a system to review research ethics with human beings made up by the National Commission on Research Ethics (CONEP) and 779 Research Ethics Committees (RECs), in 2017. The RECs are supposed to follow the same rules regarding their membership, although the RECs that review Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researches must respect Resolution 510/16. There are Brazilian RECs that review SSH and clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the academic professional profile of the members of the CONEP and Brazilian RECs, their adequacy to the norms, and the challenges faced by the REC's Chairs to compose their membership. METHODS: All 779 Brazilian RECs' chairs are invited to fill in a questionnaire informing academic and professional background of the RECs members, and 92 answered. However, eight were excluded for having sent an incomplete questionnaire, leaving a total of 84 participants. The variables were described by absolute and relative frequency. The Chi-square test and ANOVA was used to analyze regional differences related difficulties to compose the committee. The significance level was 95%. RESULTS: The results showed a predominance of members from the biomedical area (57%), while 33% were members of the Social Sciences and Humanities and 5.5% were community representatives. As for the academic degree, there were (45.2%) PhD and (27.9%) masters. The divergences in relation to the guidelines result from the difficulties of having participants in some areas and the little interest in the work carried out by the committees. CONCLUSION: The RECs are partially adequate to the norms and their performance may be compromised by the low participation of community representatives. The organization of REC's specifics to review biomedical research could improve the ethical review process, ensuring a membership more qualified for these protocols.

Electronic informed consent criteria for research ethics review: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The research shows a growing trend in using an electronic platform to supplement or replace traditional paper-based informed consent processes. Instead of the traditionally written informed consent document, electronic informed consent (eConsent) may be used to assess the research subject's comprehension of the information presented. By doing so, respect for persons as one of the research ethical principles can be upheld. Furthermore, these electronic methods may reduce potential airborne infection exposures, particularly during the pandemic, thereby adhering to the beneficence and nonmaleficence principle. This scoping review aims to identify the ethics related criteria that have been included in electronic informed consent processes and to synthesize and map these criteria to research ethics principles, in order to identify the gaps, if any, in current electronic informed consent processes. METHODS: The search was performed based on internet search and three main databases: PubMed, SCOPUS and EBSCO. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation guideline was used to report this work. RESULTS: Of 34 studies that met the inclusion criteria, 242 essential original constructs were collated, and 7 concepts were derived. Digital content showed the highest percentage of collated original constructs (27%, n = 65) followed by accessibility (24%, n = 56), comprehension engagement (18%, n = 43), autonomy (14%, n = 34), confidentiality (11%, n = 25), language (5%, n = 13), and parental consent (1%, n = 2). Twenty-five new items were synthesized for eConsent criteria which may provide guidance for ethical review of research involving eConsent. CONCLUSION: The current study adds significant value to the corpus of knowledge in research ethics by providing ethical criteria on electronic informed consent based on evidence-based data. The new synthesized items in the criteria can be readily used as an initial guide by the IRB/REC members during a review process on electronic informed consent and useful to the future preparation of a checklist.

Using Social Media for Clinical Research: Recommendations and Examples From the Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health.

Social media integration into research has increased, and 92% of American social media participants state they would share their data with researchers. Yet, the potential of these data to transform health outcomes has not been fully realized, and the way clinical research is performed has been held back. The use of these technologies in research is dependent on the investigators' awareness of their potential and their ability to innovate within regulatory and institutional guidelines. The Brown-Lifespan Center for Digital Health has launched an initiative to address these challenges and provide a helpful framework to expand social media use in clinical research.

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.

CMS Open Payments Database Analysis of Industry Payments for Foot and Ankle Surgery Research.

With decreasing federal funding, the role of industry in supporting medical investigations continues to grow. To increase transparency between physicians and industry, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services introduced the Open Payments Program, providing a searchable database of physician payments from entities including medical device companies. This study describes industry research payments and trends among foot and ankle surgeons. Research Payment Data among foot and ankle surgeons from the Open Payments Database was reviewed from 2013 through 2020. Payment year, value, type, and physician name were collected, and descriptive statistics were presented. Linear regression assessed trends in the number and value of payments. Analysis of variance and subsequent post hoc testing assessed differences in mean payment value. A p value of ≤.05 was considered statistically significant. Overall, 10,872 payments totaling $69,595,393.10 among 446 foot and ankle surgeons were analyzed. No statistically significant increase in number of physicians, payments, or mean payment value per physician was observed from 2013 through 2020. However, the average value of payments in 2019 and 2020 was greater than 2015 and 2017 (p ≤ .05). The top 50 physicians according to cumulative payment value received $54,696,623.10 with 9427 (86.7%) cash and cash-equivalent payments representing the most common payment type overall. Industry continues to provide financial support to foot and ankle surgery research. Results of this investigation spur future studies to examine the relationship between payments and positive results reported by lead investigators in published research.

The use of dietary supplements for mental health among the Saudi population: A cross-sectional survey.

Introduction: Despite limited evidence about the efficacy and safety of dietary supplements (DSs) for improving mental health, people with or without mental disorders often tend to use them, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies focused on DS use for maintaining or improving overall health; Therefore, this study aimed to assess the prevalence of DSs for mental health among the SA population and to determine the factors that affect their use. Methods: This cross-sectional study was based on an online survey of Saudi Arabian participants between July and August 2021 with an anonymous, self-completed questionnaire distributed using convenience sampling. The questionnaire included queries related to demographic information, DS use assessment, and mental health evaluation using the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7), questionnaire, and the Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Results: In total, 443 participants from various regions of Saudi Arabia completed the questionnaire. The prevalence of DS use in the Saudi population was 44%. Vitamin D (28%) and melatonin (20%) were the most commonly reported DSs used for mental health. The odds of DS use were three times higher in responders with previous mental health diagnoses (OR: 2.972; 95% CI: 1.602-5.515). Furthermore, the chances of using DSs almost doubled in patients with sub-threshold and moderate to severe insomnia (OR: 1.930; 95% CI: 1.191-3.126 and OR: 2.485; 95% CI: 1.247-4.954, respectively). Conclusion: Responders diagnosed by a specialist with psychiatric disorders or current insomnia had a higher chance of using DSs. Thus, healthcare providers must provide evidence-based information regarding DSs for mental health improvement and encourage the public to consult healthcare professionals before self-medicating for mental health problems.

Navigating the Institutional Review Board Process.

Participating in a research project can be a very rewarding activity. Yet prior to undertaking any aspect of a research project that involves human participants, the principal investigator must submit their project to and gain approval from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This article in the "Exploring the Evidence: Focusing on the Fundamentals" series provides nephrology nurses with basic information related to the IRB process, as well as steps to follow in the preparation and submission of a research project for IRB approval.