利益相关者对实施美国国立卫生研究院单一机构审查委员会政策的思考。

Q2 Social Sciences
Amy Corneli, Kevin McKenna, Emily Hanlen-Rosado, Sara B. Calvert, Eric Mah, Stephen J. Rosenfeld
{"title":"利益相关者对实施美国国立卫生研究院单一机构审查委员会政策的思考。","authors":"Amy Corneli,&nbsp;Kevin McKenna,&nbsp;Emily Hanlen-Rosado,&nbsp;Sara B. Calvert,&nbsp;Eric Mah,&nbsp;Stephen J. Rosenfeld","doi":"10.1002/eahr.500179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH-funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in-depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36829,"journal":{"name":"Ethics & human research","volume":"45 5","pages":"15-26"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stakeholder Reflections on Implementing the National Institutes of Health's Policy on Single Institutional Review Boards\",\"authors\":\"Amy Corneli,&nbsp;Kevin McKenna,&nbsp;Emily Hanlen-Rosado,&nbsp;Sara B. Calvert,&nbsp;Eric Mah,&nbsp;Stephen J. Rosenfeld\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/eahr.500179\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH-funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in-depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36829,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"volume\":\"45 5\",\"pages\":\"15-26\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics & human research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500179\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics & human research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/eahr.500179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)要求使用一个单一的机构审查委员会(sIRB)进行由NIH资助的多站点、非排他性的人类参与者研究。临床试验转型倡议(CTTI)对两所大学的34名利益相关者和多个机构的研究管理领导职位进行了深入采访,了解他们实施sIRB模式的经验,重点关注NIH政策颁布后不久的目标。虽然一些利益攸关方表示,使用sIRB简化并减少了与当地IRB模式相关的低效率,但更多的利益攸关方指出,由于工作人员和机构的角色和责任不明确,sIRB模式并没有简化道德操守审查程序,反而造成了新的低效率;缺乏用于实现sIRB模型的系统和过程,包括通信系统;工作量增加。CTTI利用这些发现提出了一个评估NIH sIRB政策的新框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stakeholder Reflections on Implementing the National Institutes of Health's Policy on Single Institutional Review Boards

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) requires use of a single institutional review board (sIRB) for multisite, nonexempt, NIH-funded research with human participants. The Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) conducted in-depth interviews with 34 stakeholders at two universities and in research administration leadership positions at multiple institutions about their experiences implementing the sIRB model, focusing on the NIH policy's goals soon after the policy was enacted. While some stakeholders suggested that using an sIRB has streamlined and reduced inefficiencies associated with the local IRB model, more stakeholders indicated that the sIRB model has not simplified the ethics review process and instead created new inefficiencies due to unclear roles and responsibilities for staff and institutions; a lack of systems and processes for implementing the sIRB model, including communication systems; and increased workloads. CTTI used these findings to propose a new framework for evaluating the NIH sIRB policy.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Ethics & human research
Ethics & human research Social Sciences-Health (social science)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
×
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