Suppr超能文献

多中心研究中的机构审查委员会挑战:来自爱尔兰老龄化纵向研究智力残疾补充项目(IDS-TILDA)的病例报告与评论

IRB challenges in multisite studies: A case report and commentary from the Intellectual Disability Supplement to the Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing (IDS-TILDA).

作者信息

McCausland Darren, Haigh Margaret, McCallion Philip, McCarron Mary

机构信息

Trinity Centre for Ageing and Intellectual Disability, The University of Dublin Trinity College, Dublin, Leinster, Ireland.

Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

出版信息

HRB Open Res. 2024 Feb 12;7:3. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13854.1. eCollection 2024.

Abstract

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.

摘要

从单中心健康研究转向多中心健康研究带来了一系列研究益处,包括更快地招募更大规模、更多样化的样本;增强统计效力、提高严谨性、普遍性和外部可靠性;以及增加影响政策和临床实践的可能性。然而,与单中心研究相比,机构审查委员会(IRB)对多中心研究的伦理审查提出了特殊挑战,需要向多个地方IRB申请,这增加了研究负担,可能危及研究过程的完整性或阻碍多中心研究的开展。单一集中式IRB的选择可能会提供更清晰、更一致和高效的审查流程。本研究呈现了爱尔兰纵向老龄化研究(IDS-TILDA)的智力残疾补充项目在爱尔兰多个地点与IRB合作15年的案例报告及评论。它通过前四波研究考察了IDS-TILDA的伦理审查过程。虽然48个IRB中的大多数在13周内批准了伦理许可,但有6个IRB花了21至47周才批准,导致数据收集延迟长达11个月。尽管审查时间增加了,但研究方案无需更改。因此,该过程的一个关键影响是少数组织的数据收集启动延迟,以及一个组织对研究的参与度降低。多个IRB的伦理审查过程增加了流程的复杂程度,带来了更多官僚作风,并且需要在48个IRB之间进行大量沟通,大幅增加了审查过程的资源投入。大多数IRB相对较快的批准部分得益于纵向研究在多轮研究中与各组织建立的关系。其他健康研究可能无法获得这一益处,这支持了为多中心健康研究建立单一IRB系统的呼声。

相似文献

2
American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement: oversight of clinical research.
J Clin Oncol. 2003 Jun 15;21(12):2377-86. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2003.04.026. Epub 2003 Apr 29.
3
Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research.
Health Serv Res. 2006 Feb;41(1):214-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00458.x.
4
Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Jan 7;14:100319. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100319. eCollection 2019 Jun.
7
Operational Characteristics of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States.
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Oct-Dec;10(4):276-286. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
8
10
Clinical Research in Vulnerable Populations: Variability and Focus of Institutional Review Boards' Responses.
PLoS One. 2015 Aug 14;10(8):e0135997. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0135997. eCollection 2015.

本文引用的文献

1
Implementation of single IRB review for multisite human subjects research: Persistent challenges and possible solutions.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2023 Apr 4;7(1):e99. doi: 10.1017/cts.2023.517. eCollection 2023.
2
The IRB Reliance Exchange (IREx): A national web-based platform for operationalizing single IRB review.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2022 Mar 23;6(1):e39. doi: 10.1017/cts.2022.376. eCollection 2022.
3
Ethics and governance for a multi-site study in Australia: Navigating the snakes and ladders.
J Paediatr Child Health. 2022 Jan;58(1):16-23. doi: 10.1111/jpc.15747. Epub 2021 Sep 16.
5
Drivers of Start-Up Delays in Global Randomized Clinical Trials.
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2021 Jan;55(1):212-227. doi: 10.1007/s43441-020-00207-2. Epub 2020 Sep 21.
6
The SMART IRB platform: A national resource for IRB review for multisite studies.
J Clin Transl Sci. 2019 Jul 29;3(4):129-139. doi: 10.1017/cts.2019.394. eCollection 2019 Aug.
7
Overcoming Challenges in Multisite Trials.
Nurs Res. 2019 May/Jun;68(3):227-236. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0000000000000324.
8
Use of single IRBs for multi-site studies: A case report and commentary from a National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network study.
Contemp Clin Trials Commun. 2019 Jan 7;14:100319. doi: 10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100319. eCollection 2019 Jun.
9
Enriching the concept of vulnerability in research ethics: An integrative and functional account.
Bioethics. 2019 Jan;33(1):19-34. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12471. Epub 2018 Aug 23.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验