Perspective: Medical Education Research and the Institutional Review Board: Reexamining the Process
Johansson, Anna C
Durning, Steven J
Gruppen, Larry D
Olson, Marianne E
Schwartzstein, Richard M
Higgins, Patricia A
Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 2011 Jul; 86(7): 809-17
Medical school and residency training curricula across the country have undergone extensive revisions and, much like clinical quality improvement (QI) initiatives, require assessments of new programs. Because sharing knowledge is a hallmark of academic medicine, program evaluation may come under the purview of the institutional review board (IRB); however, the distinction between QI and research is often unclear. And yet a medical education (ME) inquiry can be designed according to either paradigm. The purpose of this article is to bring IRBs and ME researchers closer to a shared understanding of key concepts underlying human participation in research and QI activities, and to consensus on the application of these concepts. The current QI discourse provides a useful framework for making this distinction; the authors identify key theoretical principles and practical considerations derived from this work that are relevant to ME and training, such as the application of the regulatory definition of human subject research to ME inquiries. For ME inquiries defined as human subject research, and therefore subject to IRB review, this article explores the application of the human research regulations to ME research. It concludes with practical suggestions for institutions, IRBs, and ME researchers, which range from formal procedures for making the QI versus research distinction, to instruction in study design and development and the human subject regulatory implications. The intent is to promote a discussion that will result in greater consensus and a more consistent application of the regulatory framework.
Showing items related by title, author, creator and subject.
Protecting Research Participants Review of Institutional Review Boards: Management and Function, Edited by R.J. Amdur and E.A. Bankert; Institutional Review Board: Member Handbook, by R. Amdur; Study Guide for Institutional Review Board: Management and Function, by S. Kornetsky, A. Davis, and R.J. Amdur; Principles of Clinical Research, Edited by I. Di Giovanna and G. Hayes; Informed Consent in Medical Research, Edited by L. Doyal and J.S. Tobias; the Complete Guide to Informed Consent in Clinical Trials, Edited by T. Hartnett; Tuskegee's Truths: Rethinking the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, Edited by S.M. Reverby; European Neonatal Research: Consent, Ethics Committees and Law, Edited by S. Mason and C. Megone; the Ethics of Medical Research on Humans, by C. Foster; Ethical Issues in Biomedical Publication, Edited by A. Hudson Jones and F. McLellan; Fraud and Misconduct in Biomedical Research (3rd Edition), Edited by S. Lock, F. Wells, and M. Farthing; Biomedical Research Ethics: Updating International Guidel Nicholson, Richard (2002-11)
Changes in the Institutional Review Board Submission Process for Multicenter Research Over 6 Years Pogorzelska, Monika; Stone, Patricia W; Cohn, Elizabeth Gross; Larson, Elaine (2010-07)Although collaborative research across sites is essential to increase the statistical power and generalizability of research findings, the need to undergo multiple institutional review board (IRB) reviews is a challenge. ...
Implementation of Community Consultation for Waiver of Informed Consent in Emergency Research: One Institutional Review Board's Experience Dix, Emily S.; Esposito, Domenic; Spinosa, Frances; Olson, Nancy; Chapman, Stanley (2004-03)