Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study

Catherine C. Vick, Kelly R. Finan, Catarina Kiefe, Leigh A Neumayer, Mary T. Hawn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The Veterans Administration is an ideal setting for multisite studies; however, individual VA Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is necessary. This study examines the burden of multisite IRB approval on a Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) ventral hernia outcomes observational study. Methods: Data gathered on the IRB process per site included time required for application completion, staff training and compliance, IRB affiliation (VA or university), approval status, and time to IRB approval. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine differences in median times for application completion and approval. Financial and temporal expenses were calculated. Results: Significant differences were found in median time to complete applications by IRB affiliation (P < .01) and median time to approval by changes required to the consent letter (P < .05). Conclusions: The IRB process for a multisite observational study is expensive in both time and money. A VA national IRB for multisite studies would significantly decrease the financial and temporal burden for observational studies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)805-809
Number of pages5
JournalAmerican Journal of Surgery
Volume190
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2005
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Observational Studies
Nonparametric Statistics
Ventral Hernia
United States Department of Veterans Affairs
Health Services Research
Compliance
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Research

Keywords

  • Informed consent
  • Institutional Review Board
  • Multisite
  • Observational
  • Processes
  • Variation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. / Vick, Catherine C.; Finan, Kelly R.; Kiefe, Catarina; Neumayer, Leigh A; Hawn, Mary T.

In: American Journal of Surgery, Vol. 190, No. 5, 11.2005, p. 805-809.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Vick, Catherine C. ; Finan, Kelly R. ; Kiefe, Catarina ; Neumayer, Leigh A ; Hawn, Mary T. / Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. In: American Journal of Surgery. 2005 ; Vol. 190, No. 5. pp. 805-809.
@article{c21b25bf4da44717aea0b3276eeeaa1f,
title = "Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study",
abstract = "Background: The Veterans Administration is an ideal setting for multisite studies; however, individual VA Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is necessary. This study examines the burden of multisite IRB approval on a Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) ventral hernia outcomes observational study. Methods: Data gathered on the IRB process per site included time required for application completion, staff training and compliance, IRB affiliation (VA or university), approval status, and time to IRB approval. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine differences in median times for application completion and approval. Financial and temporal expenses were calculated. Results: Significant differences were found in median time to complete applications by IRB affiliation (P < .01) and median time to approval by changes required to the consent letter (P < .05). Conclusions: The IRB process for a multisite observational study is expensive in both time and money. A VA national IRB for multisite studies would significantly decrease the financial and temporal burden for observational studies.",
keywords = "Informed consent, Institutional Review Board, Multisite, Observational, Processes, Variation",
author = "Vick, {Catherine C.} and Finan, {Kelly R.} and Catarina Kiefe and Neumayer, {Leigh A} and Hawn, {Mary T.}",
year = "2005",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "190",
pages = "805--809",
journal = "American Journal of Surgery",
issn = "0002-9610",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study

AU - Vick, Catherine C.

AU - Finan, Kelly R.

AU - Kiefe, Catarina

AU - Neumayer, Leigh A

AU - Hawn, Mary T.

PY - 2005/11

Y1 - 2005/11

N2 - Background: The Veterans Administration is an ideal setting for multisite studies; however, individual VA Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is necessary. This study examines the burden of multisite IRB approval on a Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) ventral hernia outcomes observational study. Methods: Data gathered on the IRB process per site included time required for application completion, staff training and compliance, IRB affiliation (VA or university), approval status, and time to IRB approval. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine differences in median times for application completion and approval. Financial and temporal expenses were calculated. Results: Significant differences were found in median time to complete applications by IRB affiliation (P < .01) and median time to approval by changes required to the consent letter (P < .05). Conclusions: The IRB process for a multisite observational study is expensive in both time and money. A VA national IRB for multisite studies would significantly decrease the financial and temporal burden for observational studies.

AB - Background: The Veterans Administration is an ideal setting for multisite studies; however, individual VA Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval is necessary. This study examines the burden of multisite IRB approval on a Health Services Research and Development (HSRD) ventral hernia outcomes observational study. Methods: Data gathered on the IRB process per site included time required for application completion, staff training and compliance, IRB affiliation (VA or university), approval status, and time to IRB approval. Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to determine differences in median times for application completion and approval. Financial and temporal expenses were calculated. Results: Significant differences were found in median time to complete applications by IRB affiliation (P < .01) and median time to approval by changes required to the consent letter (P < .05). Conclusions: The IRB process for a multisite observational study is expensive in both time and money. A VA national IRB for multisite studies would significantly decrease the financial and temporal burden for observational studies.

KW - Informed consent

KW - Institutional Review Board

KW - Multisite

KW - Observational

KW - Processes

KW - Variation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=26844473083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=26844473083&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024

DO - 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.07.024

M3 - Article

C2 - 16226962

AN - SCOPUS:26844473083

VL - 190

SP - 805

EP - 809

JO - American Journal of Surgery

JF - American Journal of Surgery

SN - 0002-9610

IS - 5

ER -