We surveyed irb chairs in the United States to ascertain whether their IRBs have clarity regarding their FDA-mandated role in reviewing humanitarian use device (HUD) applications, which are neither research devices nor fully tested treatments. Of 2,588 Chairs, 469 (18%) completed the survey, almost half of whom (44%) reported review of a HUD application within the previous five years. Findings suggest that many IRB Chairs are confused about what HUDs are, how to review HUD applications, and why IRBs should review them. We recommend that the FDA clarify their policies so that Chairs can provide the guidance necessary for IRBs to more effectively and consistently review HUD applications, and thereby better protect HUD-treated patients.
BernardH. R. & RyanG. W. (1998) Text analysis: Qualitative and quantitative methods. In BernardH. R., Handbook of methods in cultural anthropology (pp. 595–646). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.
2.
BradleyE. H.CurryL. A., & DeversK. J. (2007). Qualitative data analysis for health services research: Developing taxonomy, themes, and theory. Health Services Research, 42(4), 1758–1772.
3.
BraithwaiteD.EmeryJ.De LusignanS., & SuttonS. (2003). Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: A valid alternative?Family Practice, 20(5), 545–551.
4.
BrannenJ. (1992). Combining qualitative and quantitative approaches: An overview. In BrannenJ. (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 3–37). Brookfield, CT: Avebury.
5.
BrymanA. (1992). Quantitative and qualitative research: Further reflections on their integration. In BrannenJ. (Ed.), Mixing methods: Qualitative and quantitative research (pp. 57–78). Brookfield, CT: Avebury.
6.
CallahanD. (1993). The troubled dream of life: In search of peaceful death. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
7.
DenzinN. K. (1970). The research act, 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: Aldine.
8.
DeRenzoE. G. (2000). Coercion in the recruitment and retention of human research subjects, pharmaceutical industry payments to physician-investigators, and the moral courage of the IRB. IRB, 22(2), 1–5.
9.
DeVriesR.DeBruinD. A., & GoodgameA. (2004). Ethics review of social, behavioral, and economic research: Where should we go from here?Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 351–368.
10.
DillmanD. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method, 2nd ed.New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
11.
DrenthP. J. D. (2006). Responsible conduct in research. Science & Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 13–21.
GordonE. J. (2003). Trials and tribulations of navigating Institutional Review Boards and other human subjects provisions. Anthropological Quarterly, 76, 299–320.
14.
GordonE. J. & DaughertyC. K. (2001). Referral and decision making among advanced cancer patients participating in phase I trials at a single institution. Journal of Clinical Ethics, 12(1), 31–38.
15.
GreenL. A.LoweryJ. C.KowalskiC. P., & WyszewianskiL. (2006). Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Services Research, 41(1), 214–230.
16.
HubermanA. M. & MilesM. B. (1994). Data management and analysis methods. In DenzinN. K. & LincolnY. S. (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 413–427). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
17.
Keith-SpiegelP. & KoocherG. P. (2005). The IRB paradox: Could the protectors also encourage deceit?Ethics & Behavior, 15(4), 339–349.
18.
KennedyB. J. (1984). Impact of Institutional Review Boards on cancer research. Journal of Bioethics, 5(1), 27–32.
19.
LuborskyM. (1994). The identification and analysis of themes and patterns. In GubriumJ. F. & SankarA. (Eds.), Qualitative methods in aging research (pp. 189–210). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
20.
MacrinaF. L. (2005). Scientific integrity: Text and cases in responsible conduct of research, 3rd ed.Washington, D.C: ASM Press.
21.
MaloneyD. (2001). IRBs and Humanitarian Device Exemptions (HDEs). Human Research Report, 16(9), 4.
22.
RedmanB. K. & MerzJ. F. (2005). Evaluating the oversight of scientific misconduct. Accountability in Research, 12(3), 157–162.
23.
RogersA. S.SchwartzD. F.WeissmanG., & EnglishA. (1999). A case study in adolescent participation in clinical research: Eleven clinical sites, one common protocol, and eleven IRBs. IRB, 21(1), 6–10.
24.
SilvermanH.HullS. C., & SugarmanJ. (2001). Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Critical Care Medicine, 29(2), 235–241.
25.
StangeK. C. & ZyzanskiS. J. (1989). Integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods. Family Medicine, 21(6), 448–451.
26.
SteneckN. H. (2006). Fostering integrity in research: Definitions, current knowledge, and future directions. Science and Engineering Ethics, 12(1), 53–74.
27.
U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services. (2006). Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) regulation: Questions and answers. Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, July 18, 2006. Retrieved January 3, 2008 from http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/ode/guidance/1381.pdf.
28.
Van LuijnH. E.AaronsonN. K.KeusR. B., & MusschengaA. W. (2006). The evaluation of the risks and benefits of phase II cancer clinical trials by Institutional Review Board (IRB) members: A case study. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(3), 170–176.
29.
VickC. C.FinanK. R.KiefeC.NeumayerL., & HawnM. T. (2005). Variation in Institutional Review processes for a multisite observational study. The American Journal of Surgery, 190(5), 805–809.
30.
WagenerD. K.SporerA. K.SimmerlingM.FlomeJ. L.AnC. & CurryS. J. (2004). Human participants challenges in youth-focused research: Perspectives and practices of IRB administrators. Ethics & Behavior, 14(4), 335–349.
31.
WeinfurtK. P.DinanM. A.AllsbrookJ. S.FriedmanJ. Y.HallM. A.SchulmanK.A., & SugarmanJ. (2006). Policies of academic medical centers for disclosing financial conflicts of interest to potential research participants. Academic Medicine, 81(2), 113–118.
32.
ZyzanskiS. J.McWhinneyI. R.BlackR.CrabtreeB. F., & MillerW. L. (1992). Qualitative research: Perspectives on the future. In CrabtreeB. F. and MillerW. L. (Eds.), Doing qualitative research (pp. 231–248). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
