How Single Institutional Review Boards Manage Their Own Conflicts of Interest: Findings From a National Interview Study
| Autor: | Paul S. Appelbaum, Ekaterina Pivovarova, Robert L. Klitzman, Alexandra Murray, Charles W. Lidz, Deborah F. Stiles |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Adult
Male 020205 medical informatics MEDLINE 02 engineering and technology Article Education 03 medical and health sciences Young Adult 0302 clinical medicine Agency (sociology) Common Rule 0202 electrical engineering electronic engineering information engineering Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Qualitative Research Research ethics Government business.industry Conflict of Interest Conflict of interest General Medicine Public relations Middle Aged United States National Institutes of Health (U.S.) Interview study Female business Qualitative research Ethics Committees Research |
| Zdroj: | Acad Med |
| Popis: | Purpose Conflicts of interest (COIs) are important ethical concerns because they may affect scientific decision making, research integrity, and the safety and fairness of studies. No research to date has examined COIs of single institutional review boards (sIRBs), which are now mandated by the National Institutes of Health, and will be by the revised Common Rule in 2020, for all multisite research. This study investigated how different types of sIRBs manage their own COIs by documenting existing processes for and comparing commercial, government, and academic sIRBs. Method One hundred three personnel from 20 commercial, government, or academic sIRBs participated in semistructured interviews about their processes for and experiences with managing COIs when conducting multisite research review. Results Variability in COI management policies exist across types of sIRBs. Commercial sIRBs were aware of their own COIs given their for-profit model, and managed them by using firewalls, relying on external reviewers, and turning down potential clients. Government sIRBs described unique COIs stemming from the same agency funding the sIRB and the research being reviewed. They addressed these by discussing concerns about COIs, using firewalls, relying on nonaffiliated reviewers, and having broad COI policies. In contrast to commercial and government sIRBs, academic sIRBs did not report any specific policies to manage their COIs, which are similar to those of local IRBs. Conclusions As sIRBs become increasingly common, researchers will need to weigh the different COIs inherent to each type of sIRB. Additionally, academic sIRBs may consider implementing specific policies for managing their COIs. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|