Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study

Kathleen Dziak, Roger Anderson, Mary Ann Sevick, Carol S. Weisman, Douglas W. Levine, Sarah Hudson Scholle

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

85 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. Data Sources/Study Setting. Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. Study Design. Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. Principal Findings. IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. Conclusions. Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)279-290
Number of pages12
JournalHealth Services Research
Volume40
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2005

Fingerprint

Health Services Research
Research Ethics Committees
health service
participation
telephone interview
health care
Patient Participation
Quality of Health Care
Information Storage and Retrieval
Names
Primary Health Care
Interviews

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Nursing(all)
  • Health(social science)
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Dziak, Kathleen ; Anderson, Roger ; Sevick, Mary Ann ; Weisman, Carol S. ; Levine, Douglas W. ; Scholle, Sarah Hudson. / Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. In: Health Services Research. 2005 ; Vol. 40, No. 1. pp. 279-290.
@article{862d6f66356447dcb77f9c3b2bfdc7c9,
title = "Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study",
abstract = "Objective. To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. Data Sources/Study Setting. Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. Study Design. Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. Principal Findings. IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. Conclusions. Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.",
author = "Kathleen Dziak and Roger Anderson and Sevick, {Mary Ann} and Weisman, {Carol S.} and Levine, {Douglas W.} and Scholle, {Sarah Hudson}",
year = "2005",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "40",
pages = "279--290",
journal = "Health Services Research",
issn = "0017-9124",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. / Dziak, Kathleen; Anderson, Roger; Sevick, Mary Ann; Weisman, Carol S.; Levine, Douglas W.; Scholle, Sarah Hudson.

In: Health Services Research, Vol. 40, No. 1, 01.02.2005, p. 279-290.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study

AU - Dziak, Kathleen

AU - Anderson, Roger

AU - Sevick, Mary Ann

AU - Weisman, Carol S.

AU - Levine, Douglas W.

AU - Scholle, Sarah Hudson

PY - 2005/2/1

Y1 - 2005/2/1

N2 - Objective. To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. Data Sources/Study Setting. Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. Study Design. Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. Principal Findings. IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. Conclusions. Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.

AB - Objective. To document the Institutional Review Board (IRB) review process and to explore the impact of different patient notification procedures. Data Sources/Study Setting. Review of IRB application and correspondence records prospectively collected during a multisite study of health care quality involving telephone interviews of 3,000 participants across 15 primary care sites. Study Design. Records were reviewed to ascertain: (1) the type of IRB review conducted, (2) the number of days from submission to approval of the IRB application, (3) whether the IRB required patient notification and/or consent prior to the release of names, and (4) patient participation rates. Data Collection/Extraction Methods. The study coordinating center prepared a common study protocol for IRB submission and assisted sites with submission. The application, correspondence with the IRB, consent script, and patient letters were collected, reviewed, coded, and analyzed. Principal Findings. IRBs at the 15 sites and survey center varied in the type of IRB required and the number of days from submission to approval (range of 5-172 days). Four sites required patient notification in advance of the study; 2-11 percent of patients refused in opt-out sites and 37 percent in the single opt-in site. Participation among contacted patients did not appear to be related to patient notification procedures. Conclusions. Variations in IRB requirements can affect response rates and sample generalizability.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=13644266883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=13644266883&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x

M3 - Review article

VL - 40

SP - 279

EP - 290

JO - Health Services Research

JF - Health Services Research

SN - 0017-9124

IS - 1

ER -