IRB Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: A National Survey of IRB Chairpersons

Abstract

Patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is becoming increasingly common. However, there is little evidence regarding what novel ethical challenges, if any, are posed by PCOR with relevance to institutional review board (IRB) oversight and human subjects protections. This article reports the results of a national survey of all IRB chairpersons from research-intensive institutions in the United States. Findings address the responsibilities of IRBs and the challenges associated with PCOR review and oversight. IRB chairpersons varied in their judgment of PCOR’s overall value to the scientific enterprise and to research at their institution. Furthermore, 27% of respondents considered patients serving in nontraditional roles to be research subjects even when they are not enrolled in research. There was also variation in the training and safeguards their IRBs require for patient partners. Our results suggest that guidance should be developed around ethical and regulatory issues associated with PCOR oversight.

Keywords

empirical studies of research ethics ethics and public policy human subjects ethics human subjects regulation and oversight patient-centered outcomes research

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

Grady

(2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6, 3-19. doi:10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3

Ali

Califf

Sugarman

(2016). Anticipated ethics and regulatory challenges in PCORnet: The national patient-centered clinical research network. Accountability in Research, 23, 79-96. doi:10.1080/08989621.2015.1023951

Campbell

E. G.

Weissman

J. S.

Vogeli

Clarridge

B. R.

Abraham

Marder

J. E.

Koski

(2006). Financial relationships between institutional review board members and industry. The New England Journal of Medicine, 355, 2321-2329.

Department of Homeland Security, Department of Agriculture, et al. (2017). Federal policy for the protection of human subjects. Federal Register, 82, 7149-7274. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2017/01/19/2017-01058/federal-policy-for-the-protection-of-human-subjects

Domecq

J. P.

Prutsky

Elraiyah

Wang

Nabhan

Shippee

. . . Murad

M. H.

(2014). Patient engagement in research: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 14, Article 89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89

Ellis

L. E.

Kass

N. E.

(2017a). How are PCORI-funded researchers engaging patients in research and what are the ethical implications? AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 8, 1-10.

Ellis

L. E.

Kass

N. E.

(2017b). Patient engagement in patient-centered outcomes research: Challenges, facilitators and actions to strengthen the field. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 6, 363-373. doi:10.2217/cer-2016-0075

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

Grady

(2000). What makes clinical research ethical? Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2701-2711.

Frank

Basch

Selby

J. V.

(2014). The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312, 1513-1514.

10.

Institute of Medicine. (2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

11.

Largent

E. A.

Weissman

J. S.

Gupta

Abraham

Rozenblum

Fernandez

H. L.

. . . Cohen

G. I.

(2018). Stakeholder perspectives on ethical and regulatory oversight issues in patient-centered outcomes research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 40(1), 7-17.

12.

National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. United States: National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

13.

National Institutes of Health. (2016). NIH awards by location & organization. Author. Retrieved from https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm

14.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (2016). PCORI patient and family engagement rubric. Author. Retrieved from https://www.pcori.org/sites/default/files/Engagement-Rubric.pdf

15.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (2018a). How does the research PCORI funds differ from Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR)? Retrieved from https://help.pcori.org/hc/en-us/articles/213231818-How-does-the-research-PCORI-funds-differ-from-Community-Based-Participatory-Research-CBPR-

16.

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. (2018b). Patient-centered outcomes research. Retrieved from https://www.pcori.org/research-results/patient-centered-outcomes-research

17.

Sofolahan-Oladeinde

Mullins

C. D.

Baquet

C. R.

(2015). Using community-based participatory research in patient-centered outcomes research to address health disparities in under-represented communities. Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research, 4, 515-523.

18.

Sugarman

(2016). Ethics and regulatory challenges and opportunities in patient-centered comparative effectiveness research. Academic Medicine: Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 91, 455-457. doi:10.1097/ACM.0000000000001096

19.

Weissman

J. S.

Koski

Vogeli

Thiessen

Campbell

E. G.

(2008). Opinions of IRB members and chairs regarding investigators’ relationships with industry. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3, 3-13. doi:10.1525/jer.2008.3.1.3