Clinician educators' experiences with institutional review boards: results of a national survey.
ABSTRACT To explore clinician educators' perceptions and experiences in obtaining institutional review board (IRB) approval to conduct medical education research (MER).
Institutional members of the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine (CDIM; n = 110) were surveyed in 2006. The survey included questions about familiarity with and clarity of IRB policies, satisfaction with review of education research protocols, and how MER might be facilitated.
Of 83 respondents (response rate 76%), 50 had submitted a MER protocol to an IRB. Nearly all were deemed exempt (74/154) or minimal risk (71/154). No protocols were rejected or not approved. Nearly a fourth of respondents were unfamiliar with specific IRB policies directly applicable to MER. Among those respondents who had some familiarity with the IRB policies specified, 47% to 52% considered the IRB policies clear. Eighteen of 30 (60%) respondents with recent experience in multiinstitutional MER agreed there were notable differences in the expectations of various institutional IRBs; only two reported that multiple IRB reviews resulted in improvements to the protocol. Half (37/73) indicated they would be more likely to conduct MER if they had a better understanding of the IRB's role and requirements in MER. Sixty-six of 73 (90%) agreed they would benefit from a national consensus statement regarding the IRB's role in MER.
A high percentage of clinician educators in CDIM are conducting IRB-approved MER. They report several challenges with working with IRBs, and they agree that IRBs and clinician educators would benefit from a national consensus on the IRB's role in MER.
- SourceAvailable from: Anthony R Artino
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "All major medical education journals in the USA require ethics approval, typically granted from an Institutional Review Board (IRB). This requirement has added delays to project starts due to the extensive participant protection requirements often made by IRBs and the time needed to review and request modifications to study protocols (Dyrbye et al. 2008). Recently proposed changes in IRB regulations (http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/07/ "
ABSTRACT: This article was written to provide a brief history of the medical educational system in the USA, the current educational structure, and the current topics and challenges facing USA medical educators today. The USA is fortunate to have a robust educational system, with over 150 medical schools, thousands of graduate medical education programs, well-accepted standardized examinations throughout training, and many educational research programs. All levels of medical education, from curriculum reform in medical schools and the integration of competencies in graduate medical education, to the maintenance of certification in continuing medical education, have undergone rapid changes since the turn of the millennium. The intent of the changes has been to involve the patient sooner in the educational process, use better educational strategies, link educational processes more closely with educational outcomes, and focus on other skills besides knowledge. However, with the litany of changes have come increased regulation without (as of yet) clear evidence as to which of the changes will result in better physicians. In addition, the USA governmental debt crisis threatens the current educational structure. The next wave of changes in the USA medical system needs to focus on what particular educational strategies result in the best physicians and how to fund the system over the long term.Medical Teacher 04/2012; 34(7):521-5. DOI:10.3109/0142159X.2012.668248 · 2.05 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In research ethics reviews, traditional approaches of research ethics boards (REBs) balance the risks with the potential for benefit of proposed studies, and this review process has been similar for health professions education research (HPER) as it has been for clinically based studies. Health professions students are the primary population from which most education researchers draw their participants although relatively little discussion has taken place in the literature regarding student participation in HPER. The majority of HPER studies could be considered minimal risk and therefore many have suggested that such studies be exempted from REB review. However, there are not only risks to student participants which require consideration, but I argue that when this issue is viewed through the lens of Aristotle's virtue ethics, there are also potential benefits to the student, for which REB oversight can be helpful, that have not factored strongly into discussions. This paper seeks to highlight the key factors involved in student participation in HPER; to explore Aristotle's doctrine of the mean and to evaluate how this ethical framework can add value to the discussion; and to propose possible applications of the Aristotelian mean to this issue and address some of the challenges that would arise with its application.Advances in Health Sciences Education 06/2009; 16(2):277-86. DOI:10.1007/s10459-009-9164-4 · 2.71 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The system in place to ensure the ethical conduct of human subject research in accordance with federal regulations has drawn great criticism from all sides, to include clinical investigators, administrators, research subjects, and legislators. The administrative requirements associated with clinical trials has changed dramatically in the last several decades, as has the complexity of the science being regulated. The institutional review board (IRB) system, however, appears to be struggling to keep pace, and has even been labeled a "system in jeopardy" by a national committee of experts. This contribution outlines the current obstacles and critique of IRBs, providing a discussion of the structure of the IRB system and strategies to meet these challenges.Clinics in dermatology 07/2009; 27(4):375-83. DOI:10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.02.012 · 1.93 Impact Factor