A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent

Katie B. McClure, Nicole M. Delorio, Terri Schmidt, Gary Chiodo, Paul Gorman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Emergency exception to informed consent regulation was introduced to provide a venue to perform research on subjects in emergency situations before obtaining informed consent. For a study to proceed, institutional review boards (IRBs) need to determine if the regulations have been met. Aim: To determine IRB members' experience reviewing research protocols using emergency exception to informed consent. Methods: This qualitative research used semistructured telephone interviews of 10 selected IRB members from around the US in the fall of 2003. IRB members were chosen as little is known about their views of exception to consent, and part of their mandate is the protection of human subjects in research. Interview questions focused on the length of review process, ethical and legal considerations, training provided to IRB members on the regulations, and experience using community consultation and notification. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts of interviews. To ensure validity, data analysis was performed by individuals with varying backgrounds: three emergency physicians, an IRB member and a layperson. Results: Respondents noted that: (1) emergency exception to informed consent studies require lengthy review; (2) community consultation and notification regulations are vague and hard to implement; (3) current regulations, if applied correctly, protect human subjects; (4) legal counsel is an important aspect of reviewing exception to informed-consent protocols; and (5) IRB members have had little or no formal training in these regulations, but are able to access materials needed to review such protocols. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that IRB members find emergency exception to informed consent studies take longer to review than other protocols, and that community consultation and community notification are the most difficult aspect of the regulations with which to comply but that they adequately protect human subjects.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)289-293
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume33
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2007

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Informed Consent
Emergencies
Research Design
regulation
experience
Referral and Consultation
Interviews
community
Human Experimentation
Ethical Review
layperson
telephone interview
interview
Qualitative Study
Institutional Review Board
Emergency
Reviewing
Qualitative Research
qualitative research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Social Sciences (miscellaneous)

Cite this

A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent. / McClure, Katie B.; Delorio, Nicole M.; Schmidt, Terri; Chiodo, Gary; Gorman, Paul.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 33, No. 5, 05.2007, p. 289-293.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{26d0b0987045420a8c0ead38c12b6b29,
title = "A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent",
abstract = "Background: Emergency exception to informed consent regulation was introduced to provide a venue to perform research on subjects in emergency situations before obtaining informed consent. For a study to proceed, institutional review boards (IRBs) need to determine if the regulations have been met. Aim: To determine IRB members' experience reviewing research protocols using emergency exception to informed consent. Methods: This qualitative research used semistructured telephone interviews of 10 selected IRB members from around the US in the fall of 2003. IRB members were chosen as little is known about their views of exception to consent, and part of their mandate is the protection of human subjects in research. Interview questions focused on the length of review process, ethical and legal considerations, training provided to IRB members on the regulations, and experience using community consultation and notification. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts of interviews. To ensure validity, data analysis was performed by individuals with varying backgrounds: three emergency physicians, an IRB member and a layperson. Results: Respondents noted that: (1) emergency exception to informed consent studies require lengthy review; (2) community consultation and notification regulations are vague and hard to implement; (3) current regulations, if applied correctly, protect human subjects; (4) legal counsel is an important aspect of reviewing exception to informed-consent protocols; and (5) IRB members have had little or no formal training in these regulations, but are able to access materials needed to review such protocols. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that IRB members find emergency exception to informed consent studies take longer to review than other protocols, and that community consultation and community notification are the most difficult aspect of the regulations with which to comply but that they adequately protect human subjects.",
author = "McClure, {Katie B.} and Delorio, {Nicole M.} and Terri Schmidt and Gary Chiodo and Paul Gorman",
year = "2007",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1136/jme.2005.014878",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "289--293",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A qualitative study of institutional review board members' experience reviewing research proposals using emergency exception from informed consent

AU - McClure, Katie B.

AU - Delorio, Nicole M.

AU - Schmidt, Terri

AU - Chiodo, Gary

AU - Gorman, Paul

PY - 2007/5

Y1 - 2007/5

N2 - Background: Emergency exception to informed consent regulation was introduced to provide a venue to perform research on subjects in emergency situations before obtaining informed consent. For a study to proceed, institutional review boards (IRBs) need to determine if the regulations have been met. Aim: To determine IRB members' experience reviewing research protocols using emergency exception to informed consent. Methods: This qualitative research used semistructured telephone interviews of 10 selected IRB members from around the US in the fall of 2003. IRB members were chosen as little is known about their views of exception to consent, and part of their mandate is the protection of human subjects in research. Interview questions focused on the length of review process, ethical and legal considerations, training provided to IRB members on the regulations, and experience using community consultation and notification. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts of interviews. To ensure validity, data analysis was performed by individuals with varying backgrounds: three emergency physicians, an IRB member and a layperson. Results: Respondents noted that: (1) emergency exception to informed consent studies require lengthy review; (2) community consultation and notification regulations are vague and hard to implement; (3) current regulations, if applied correctly, protect human subjects; (4) legal counsel is an important aspect of reviewing exception to informed-consent protocols; and (5) IRB members have had little or no formal training in these regulations, but are able to access materials needed to review such protocols. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that IRB members find emergency exception to informed consent studies take longer to review than other protocols, and that community consultation and community notification are the most difficult aspect of the regulations with which to comply but that they adequately protect human subjects.

AB - Background: Emergency exception to informed consent regulation was introduced to provide a venue to perform research on subjects in emergency situations before obtaining informed consent. For a study to proceed, institutional review boards (IRBs) need to determine if the regulations have been met. Aim: To determine IRB members' experience reviewing research protocols using emergency exception to informed consent. Methods: This qualitative research used semistructured telephone interviews of 10 selected IRB members from around the US in the fall of 2003. IRB members were chosen as little is known about their views of exception to consent, and part of their mandate is the protection of human subjects in research. Interview questions focused on the length of review process, ethical and legal considerations, training provided to IRB members on the regulations, and experience using community consultation and notification. Content analysis was performed on the transcripts of interviews. To ensure validity, data analysis was performed by individuals with varying backgrounds: three emergency physicians, an IRB member and a layperson. Results: Respondents noted that: (1) emergency exception to informed consent studies require lengthy review; (2) community consultation and notification regulations are vague and hard to implement; (3) current regulations, if applied correctly, protect human subjects; (4) legal counsel is an important aspect of reviewing exception to informed-consent protocols; and (5) IRB members have had little or no formal training in these regulations, but are able to access materials needed to review such protocols. Conclusions: This preliminary study suggests that IRB members find emergency exception to informed consent studies take longer to review than other protocols, and that community consultation and community notification are the most difficult aspect of the regulations with which to comply but that they adequately protect human subjects.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34248529858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34248529858&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/jme.2005.014878

DO - 10.1136/jme.2005.014878

M3 - Article

C2 - 17470507

AN - SCOPUS:34248529858

VL - 33

SP - 289

EP - 293

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 5

ER -