Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research

Rebecca D. Blanchard, Lisa Howley, Alisa Nagler, Gerald E. Crites

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Introduction: This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research. Method: This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed. Results: Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections. Discussion: Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)715-720
Number of pages6
JournalMedical Science Educator
Volume28
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 15 2018

Fingerprint

Health Educators
Health Occupations
Research Ethics Committees
profession
educator
institutional educator
health
Research
experience
Health Education
education
frustration
educational research
proliferation
Research Subjects
Frustration
Canada
Informed Consent
Research Personnel
Education

Keywords

  • Education research
  • Ethics
  • Institutional review board (IRB)
  • Multi-institutional collaboration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Education

Cite this

Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research. / Blanchard, Rebecca D.; Howley, Lisa; Nagler, Alisa; Crites, Gerald E.

In: Medical Science Educator, Vol. 28, No. 4, 15.12.2018, p. 715-720.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Blanchard, Rebecca D. ; Howley, Lisa ; Nagler, Alisa ; Crites, Gerald E. / Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research. In: Medical Science Educator. 2018 ; Vol. 28, No. 4. pp. 715-720.
@article{922f60b8926848c8b38fe9fc9d88a520,
title = "Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research",
abstract = "Introduction: This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research. Method: This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed. Results: Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections. Discussion: Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education.",
keywords = "Education research, Ethics, Institutional review board (IRB), Multi-institutional collaboration",
author = "Blanchard, {Rebecca D.} and Lisa Howley and Alisa Nagler and Crites, {Gerald E.}",
year = "2018",
month = "12",
day = "15",
doi = "10.1007/s40670-018-0620-8",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "715--720",
journal = "Medical Science Educator",
issn = "2156-8650",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research

AU - Blanchard, Rebecca D.

AU - Howley, Lisa

AU - Nagler, Alisa

AU - Crites, Gerald E.

PY - 2018/12/15

Y1 - 2018/12/15

N2 - Introduction: This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research. Method: This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed. Results: Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections. Discussion: Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education.

AB - Introduction: This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research. Method: This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed. Results: Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections. Discussion: Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education.

KW - Education research

KW - Ethics

KW - Institutional review board (IRB)

KW - Multi-institutional collaboration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85061903063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85061903063&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s40670-018-0620-8

DO - 10.1007/s40670-018-0620-8

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85061903063

VL - 28

SP - 715

EP - 720

JO - Medical Science Educator

JF - Medical Science Educator

SN - 2156-8650

IS - 4

ER -