TY - JOUR
T1 - How Do Accredited Organizations Evaluate the Quality and Effectiveness of Their Human Research Protection Programs?
AU - Fernandez Lynch, Holly
AU - Taylor, Holly A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Holly Fernandez Lynch and Holly A. Taylor are co-chairs of the Consortium to Advance Effective Research Ethics Oversight (AEREO). Members of AAHRPP’s leadership team are also members of AEREO, although their membership post-dates the interviews described in this article. There is no financial relationship between AEREO and AAHRPP. Holly Fernandez Lynch receives funding from the Greenwall Foundation as a Faculty Scholar. She is an unpaid board member of Public Responsibility in Medicine & Research (PRIM&R). She is a paid ethics consultant to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. In 2019, she received payments from a law firm for consulting regarding a whistleblower complaint alleging misconduct in research oversight at a public university. Holly Taylor’s effort is funded by the Intramural Program, Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health (NIH). The views expressed by Dr. Taylor do not represent the position or policy of the NIH, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the U.S. government.
Publisher Copyright:
© This work was authored as part of the Contributor’s official duties as an Employee of the United States Government and is therefore a work of the United States Government. In accordance with 17 U.S.C. 105, no copyright protection is available for such works under U.S. Law.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Background: Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP “quality, effectiveness, and efficiency” (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. Methods: We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization’s approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. Results: Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. Conclusions: The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.
AB - Background: Meaningfully evaluating the quality of institutional review boards (IRBs) and human research protection programs (HRPPs) is a long-recognized challenge. To be accredited by the Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs (AAHRPP), organizations must demonstrate that they measure and improve HRPP “quality, effectiveness, and efficiency” (QEE). We sought to learn how AAHRPP-accredited organizations interpret and satisfy this standard, in order to assess strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in current approaches and to inform recommendations for improvement. Methods: We conducted 3 small-group interviews with a total of 19 participant representatives of accredited organizations at the 2019 AAHRPP annual meeting. Participants were eligible if they had familiarity with their organization’s approach to satisfying the relevant QEE standard. Results: Participants reported lacking clear definitions for HRPP quality or effectiveness but described various approaches to assessing QEE, typically focused on turnaround time, compliance, and researcher satisfaction. Evaluation of IRB members was described as relatively superficial and information regarding research subject experience was not reported as central to QEE assessment, although participants described several efforts to improve consideration of patient, subject, and community perspectives in IRB review. Participants also described efforts to educate and build relationships with key stakeholders as important features of a high-quality HRPP. While generally satisfied with their approaches, participants expressed concern about resource and time constraints that pushed them to be reactive and automatic about QEE, rather than proactive and critical. Conclusions: The relevant AAHRPP accreditation standard may obscure critical gaps in defining and measuring QEE elements. We recommend that AAHRPP: (1) offer a definition of QEE or require accredited organizations to provide their own, to help clarify the rationale and goals behind assessment and improvement efforts, and (2) require accredited organizations to establish QEE objectives and measures focused on participant outcomes and deliberative quality during protocol review.
KW - IRB
KW - accreditation
KW - human research protection program
KW - quality
KW - research ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85132791386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85132791386&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641
DO - 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090641
M3 - Article
C2 - 35731960
AN - SCOPUS:85132791386
SN - 2329-4515
VL - 14
SP - 23
EP - 37
JO - AJOB Empirical Bioethics
JF - AJOB Empirical Bioethics
IS - 1
ER -