2.50
Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10755/159136
Type:
Presentation
Title:
Structure, Personnel, Activities and Fees of Domestic Institutional Review Boards
Abstract:
Structure, Personnel, Activities and Fees of Domestic Institutional Review Boards
Conference Sponsor:Midwest Nursing Research Society
Conference Year:2005
Author:Novotny, Nancy
P.I. Institution Name:University of Illinois at Chicago
Title:Clinical Research Coordinator
Contact Address:Nursing Department, 10711 Sleepy Hollow Road, Peoria, IL, 61615, USA
Contact Telephone:309-655-7735
Co-Authors:Nina Collins, Professor
Purpose: Responsibilities of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have dramatically increased. Lacking recent research on the structure or workload of IRBs, informed recommendations for the future of IRBs and optimal researcher interaction with IRBs are impossible. The purpose of this study was to describe current structure, personnel, activities, and fees of domestic IRBs. Subjects and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of domestic IRBs was conducted March-July 2004. Postal mailing to a random selection of registered IRBs included stamped return envelopes. Reminders were emailed at 1-month. As this method yielded an unacceptably low response rate of 48/276 (17%), 1163 questionnaires were emailed to additional IRBs with identifiable addresses. Results: The 136 respondent IRBs consisted of 12 plus or minus 7 regular members, and 1.7 plus or minus 2.8 full time equivalents (FTEs). Meetings occurred 12 ¦ 9 times annually and lasted 107 plus or minus 54 minutes. IRBs reviewed 0-1148 new studies (median 37) and 0-11,107 total actions (median 158). IRBs provided education for board members (78%), personnel (65%), and investigators/community (52%). Of 113 IRBs that responded to fee-related items, 28% charged $570 plus or minus $110 for full review of new studies. Total actions were dichotomized at the median. Compared to low volume IRBs, higher volume IRBs: (a) provided more education (Chi Sq 17.67, df=2, p < .001), (b) spent 24 fewer minutes/action (95% C.I. û34 to -13; t=-4.43, df=101, p < .001), and (c) charged higher fees (t=5.81, df=111, p < .001). A positive correlation between FTEs and total actions existed for high volume IRBs (r=.527, p < 0.001), but not low (r=-.153, p=0.235). Conclusions. When you have seen 1 IRB, you have seen 1 IRB. Wide variation in the IRB structure and workload is partly explained by annual workload. Among lower volume IRBs there was no indication that staffing was based on workload; a threshold effect may exist. Researchers may adjust their IRB interactions upon consideration of an IRB's unique operations. (Poster Presentation)
Repository Posting Date:
26-Oct-2011
Date of Publication:
17-Oct-2011
Sponsors:
Midwest Nursing Research Society

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.typePresentationen_GB
dc.titleStructure, Personnel, Activities and Fees of Domestic Institutional Review Boardsen_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10755/159136-
dc.description.abstract<table><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-title">Structure, Personnel, Activities and Fees of Domestic Institutional Review Boards</td></tr><tr class="item-sponsor"><td class="label">Conference Sponsor:</td><td class="value">Midwest Nursing Research Society</td></tr><tr class="item-year"><td class="label">Conference Year:</td><td class="value">2005</td></tr><tr class="item-author"><td class="label">Author:</td><td class="value">Novotny, Nancy</td></tr><tr class="item-institute"><td class="label">P.I. Institution Name:</td><td class="value">University of Illinois at Chicago</td></tr><tr class="item-author-title"><td class="label">Title:</td><td class="value">Clinical Research Coordinator</td></tr><tr class="item-address"><td class="label">Contact Address:</td><td class="value">Nursing Department, 10711 Sleepy Hollow Road, Peoria, IL, 61615, USA</td></tr><tr class="item-phone"><td class="label">Contact Telephone:</td><td class="value">309-655-7735</td></tr><tr class="item-email"><td class="label">Email:</td><td class="value">tenten@uic.edu</td></tr><tr class="item-co-authors"><td class="label">Co-Authors:</td><td class="value">Nina Collins, Professor</td></tr><tr><td colspan="2" class="item-abstract">Purpose: Responsibilities of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) have dramatically increased. Lacking recent research on the structure or workload of IRBs, informed recommendations for the future of IRBs and optimal researcher interaction with IRBs are impossible. The purpose of this study was to describe current structure, personnel, activities, and fees of domestic IRBs. Subjects and Methods: A cross-sectional survey of domestic IRBs was conducted March-July 2004. Postal mailing to a random selection of registered IRBs included stamped return envelopes. Reminders were emailed at 1-month. As this method yielded an unacceptably low response rate of 48/276 (17%), 1163 questionnaires were emailed to additional IRBs with identifiable addresses. Results: The 136 respondent IRBs consisted of 12 plus or minus 7 regular members, and 1.7 plus or minus 2.8 full time equivalents (FTEs). Meetings occurred 12 &brvbar; 9 times annually and lasted 107 plus or minus 54 minutes. IRBs reviewed 0-1148 new studies (median 37) and 0-11,107 total actions (median 158). IRBs provided education for board members (78%), personnel (65%), and investigators/community (52%). Of 113 IRBs that responded to fee-related items, 28% charged $570 plus or minus $110 for full review of new studies. Total actions were dichotomized at the median. Compared to low volume IRBs, higher volume IRBs: (a) provided more education (Chi Sq 17.67, df=2, p &lt; .001), (b) spent 24 fewer minutes/action (95% C.I. &ucirc;34 to -13; t=-4.43, df=101, p &lt; .001), and (c) charged higher fees (t=5.81, df=111, p &lt; .001). A positive correlation between FTEs and total actions existed for high volume IRBs (r=.527, p &lt; 0.001), but not low (r=-.153, p=0.235). Conclusions. When you have seen 1 IRB, you have seen 1 IRB. Wide variation in the IRB structure and workload is partly explained by annual workload. Among lower volume IRBs there was no indication that staffing was based on workload; a threshold effect may exist. Researchers may adjust their IRB interactions upon consideration of an IRB's unique operations. (Poster Presentation)</td></tr></table>en_GB
dc.date.available2011-10-26T21:44:24Z-
dc.date.issued2011-10-17en_GB
dc.date.accessioned2011-10-26T21:44:24Z-
dc.description.sponsorshipMidwest Nursing Research Societyen_GB
All Items in this repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.