How Local IRBs View Central IRBs in the US
Author Information
Author(s): Robert Klitzman
Primary Institution: Columbia University
Hypothesis
How do local IRBs view centralized IRBs in the US?
Conclusion
Local IRBs are generally preferred over centralized IRBs due to their better understanding of community values and relationships with principal investigators.
Supporting Evidence
- Local IRBs provide better local knowledge of subjects and principal investigators.
- Interviewees expressed a strong preference for local IRBs over centralized ones.
- Concerns were raised about the quality and effectiveness of centralized IRBs.
Takeaway
This study shows that local review boards are seen as better at understanding and protecting their communities than centralized boards.
Methodology
In-depth telephone interviews were conducted with 46 IRB chairs, directors, administrators, and members.
Potential Biases
Interviewees may have been biased in favor of local IRBs due to their roles within them.
Limitations
The study relied on self-reported data from interviews and did not include direct observation of IRB decision-making.
Participant Demographics
Participants included 28 chairs/co-chairs, 1 IRB director, 10 administrators, and 7 members, with a gender distribution of 27 males and 19 females.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website