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

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Holly Fernandez Lynch, Holly A Taylor
{"title":"How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?","authors":"Holly Fernandez Lynch,&nbsp;Holly A Taylor","doi":"10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":38118,"journal":{"name":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","volume":"14 1","pages":"23-37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10108380/pdf/nihms-1885508.pdf","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB Empirical Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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.

认证机构如何评估其人体研究保护计划的质量和有效性?
背景:有意义地评估机构审查委员会(irb)和人类研究保护计划(HRPPs)的质量是一个长期公认的挑战。为了获得人类研究保护计划认证协会(AAHRPP)的认证,组织必须证明他们衡量并提高了HRPP的“质量、有效性和效率”(QEE)。我们试图了解aahrpp认证的组织如何解释和满足这一标准,以评估当前方法的优势、劣势和差距,并为改进提供建议。方法:我们对2019年AAHRPP年会上认可组织的19名参与者代表进行了3次小组访谈。如果参与者熟悉其组织满足相关QEE标准的方法,则符合资格。结果:参与者报告缺乏HRPP质量或有效性的明确定义,但描述了评估QEE的各种方法,通常集中在周转时间、依从性和研究人员满意度上。IRB成员的评估被描述为相对肤浅的,关于研究对象经验的信息没有被报道为QEE评估的核心,尽管参与者描述了在IRB审查中改进对患者、受试者和社区观点的考虑的一些努力。与会者还将努力教育和建立与关键利益相关者的关系描述为高质量的人力资源方案的重要特征。虽然参与者普遍对他们的方法感到满意,但他们表达了对资源和时间限制的担忧,这些限制促使他们对QEE采取被动和自动的态度,而不是主动和批判性的态度。结论:相关的AAHRPP认证标准可能掩盖了在定义和测量QEE元素方面的关键差距。我们建议AAHRPP:(1)提供QEE的定义或要求认证组织提供自己的定义,以帮助阐明评估和改进工作背后的理由和目标;(2)要求认证组织建立QEE目标和措施,重点关注参与者的结果和方案审查期间的审议质量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AJOB Empirical Bioethics
AJOB Empirical Bioethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信