An Overview of King Hussein Cancer Center Institutional Review Board Over 12 Years (2009–2020),Successes and Challenges,Including Those Imposed by the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract

The problem: Running an efficient institutional review board (IRB) can be challenging. The research subjects: To ensure an efficient committee, our IRB adopted several operational metrics. Methods: Analysis of retrospective data from the IRB records, database, and annual reports over 12 years. Results: The IRB roster comprises 11 members. The average medical to nonmedical member ratio is 5:6, and the male to female ratio is 4:7, which has not been consistent over the years. One thousand three hundred and twenty-four proposals were reviewed including 1077 exempt (81.3%), 126 expedited (9.5%), and 121 full board (9.2%) with a median turnaround time to approval of 4.0, 35.0, and 68.0 days, respectively. Training of the IRB members was conducted to enhance their knowledge and skills. IRB at King Hussein Cancer Center has managed to stay abreast and efficient during the COVID-19 pandemic, by working remotely. Conclusion: Running an efficient IRB mandates implementing a number of operational metrics.

Keywords

institutional review board operational metrics turnaround time continuous professional development low-middle income country COVID-19 gender representation quorum

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

AAHRPP (2020). 2019 metrics on human research protection program performance. https://admin.aahrpp.org/Website%20Documents/Metrics%202019.pdf

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(1), 3–19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3

Abou-Zeid

Afzal

Silverman

H. J.

(2009). Capacity mapping of national ethics committees in the Eastern Mediterranean Region. BMC Medical Ethics, 10, 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-10-8

Adams

Kaewkungwal

Limphattharacharoen

Prakobtham

Pengsaa

Khusmith

(2014). Is your ethics committee efficient? Using “IRB metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand. PLoS One, 9(11), e113356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113356

Al-Omari

Al-Hussaini

(2017). Research ethics governance in the Arab Region: Jordan. In Silverman

(Ed.), Research ethics in the Arab Region (pp. 221–228). Springer International Publishing.

Al Omari

Khalaf

Al Delaimy

Al Qadire

Khatatbeh

M. M.

Thultheen

(2021). Perceptions of challenges affecting research ethics committees’ members at medical and health science colleges in Omani and Jordanian Universities. Journal of Academic Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10805-021-09410-8

Anderson

E. E.

(2006). A qualitative study of non-affiliated, non-scientist institutional review board members. Accountability in Research, 13(2), 135–155. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989620600654027

Atallah

Moubarak

El Kassis

Abboud

(2018). Clinical research ethics review process in Lebanon: Efficiency and functions of research ethics committees—results from a descriptive questionnaire-based study. Trials, 19(1), 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-017-2397-2

Ayoub

N. M.

Qandil

A. M.

McCutchan

J. A.

(2019). Knowledge, attitudes, and practice regarding research ethics committees among health care faculty at two public universities in Jordan. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(4), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619851351

10.

Bosso

J. A.

(1983). The role of the institutional review board in research involving human subjects. Drug Intelligence & Clinical Pharmacy, 17(11), 828–834. https://doi.org/10.1177/106002808301701112

11.

Brown

J. H.

Schoenfeld

L. S.

Allan

P. W.

(1980). The philosophy of an institutional review board for the protection of human subjects. Journal of Medical Education, 55(1), 67–69. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198001000-00014

12.

Enfield

K. B.

Truwit

J. D.

(2008). The purpose, composition, and function of an institutional review board: Balancing priorities. Respiratory Care, 53(10), 1330–1336. http://rc.rcjournal.com/content/respcare/53/10/1330.full.pdf

13.

Ghooi

R. B.

(2014). Institutional review boards: Challenges and opportunities. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 5(2), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.128020

14.

Hashem

Abufaraj

Tbakhi

Sultan

(2020). Obstacles and considerations related to clinical trial research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Front Med, 7, 598038. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2020.598038

15.

Hyder

A. A.

Wali

S. A.

Khan

A. N.

Teoh

N. B.

Kass

N. E.

Dawson

(2004). Ethical review of health research: A perspective from developing country researchers. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30(1), 68–72. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2002.001933

16.

Jee

(2020). WHO International health regulations emergency committee for the COVID-19 outbreak. Epidemiology and Health, 42, e2020013. https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2020013

17.

Lidz

C. W.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Arnold

Candilis

Gardner

Myers

Simon

(2012). How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine, 87(7), 969–974. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e

18.

Nesom

G. L.

Petrof

Moore

T. M.

(2019). Operational characteristics of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 10(4), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276

19.

Ramahi

Silverman

(2009). Clinical research law in Jordan: An ethical analysis. Developing World Bioethics, 9(1), 26–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2007.00221.x

20.

Sengupta

(2003). The roles and experiences of nonaffiliated and non-scientist members of institutional review boards. Academic Medicine, 78(2), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200302000-00019

21.

Sheblaq

N. R.

(2019). The challenges in conducting research studies in Arabic countries. Open Access Journal of Clinical Trials, 11, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.2147/OAJCT.S215738

22.

Shuman

A. G.

Pentz

R. D.

(2020). Cancer research ethics and COVID-19. The Oncologist, 25(6), 458–459. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2020-0221

23.

Spellecy

Eve

A. M.

Connors

E. R.

Shaker

Clark

D. C.

(2018). The real-time IRB: A collaborative innovation to decrease IRB review time. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(4), 432–437. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618780803

24.

Varley

P. R.

Feske

Gao

Stone

R. A.

Zhang

Monte

Hall

D. E.

(2016). Time required to review research protocols at 10 veterans affairs institutional review boards. Journal of Surgical Research, 204(2), 481–489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2016.06.004

25.

WHO (2020). Ethical standards for research during public health emergencies: Distilling existing guidance to support COVID-19 R&D. WHO/RFH/20.1. WHO.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB

0.07 MB

1.00 MB