Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

3202 Columbia University’s Personalized IRB Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 2.5 years

  • Nancy Green (a1), Zainab Abedin (a1), Allan Teller (a1), Kawthar Muhammad (a1), Brenda Ruotolo (a1), Deborah F. Stiles (a1) and Rui Ferreira (a1)...

Abstract

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: National concerns about IRB-related research delays have led to re-assessment of IRB review processes at institutional levels. We sought to address whether a dedicated IRB Liaison Service at the Irving Institute’s central location could provide additional useful staff support to the investigator community for interactions with the IRB at various levels of protocol submission. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: We evaluated the results of a user satisfaction survey and performed a focused in-depth analysis of Liaison Service impact. An online tracking and satisfaction survey was implemented for researchers to complete following each consultation. The goal was to gauge the uses, user types and usefulness of the Service, and to follow-up with researchers who might have additional questions. Data was gathered about users of the Service and their affiliations, and the topics and questions that were discussed. A terse summary was drafted to categorize each consultation that was conducted during office hour sessions. Additionally, surveys were emailed to researchers to gauge their experience with the Service and their overall satisfaction. Users completed the survey either in person at the end of the consultation, or by email request sent immediately following each in-person consultation. The impact of the IRB Liaison Service on IRB protocol approval times was analyzed for a random sub-sample of protocols for which consultations were provided. Consultations for studies with an associated IRB protocol number (i.e., at least initially submitted) from May 2015-June 2017 had been assigned a number in an Excel file. Using a randomization formula, a subset of 90 protocols was identified for further analysis. Protocols that did not result in an IRB submission and duplicate entries were removed. The final dataset consisted of 67 protocols. Those protocols were assessed by type of review process (expedited versus full board review), by status (new submission, first return, second return, etc.), and by which of the seven IRB committees completed the review. Consultations for each protocol included in this subset were reviewed using the notes about that consultation. IRB records in Columbia’s online research oversight system, Rascal, were also reviewed to assess the timing of and issues raised in subsequent IRB review. Factors examined included whether the protocol was approved at next submission and if not, whether questions raised in subsequent IRB returns were related to the topics discussed in the consultation. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Since its inception in January 2015 through June 2017 (2.5 years), a total of 501 in-person consultations have been performed, usually 25-30 per month. Users were primarily study coordinators and investigators. Most requests concerned new protocol development, policy questions or assistance in addressing IRB comments from submitted protocols. Survey response rate was 43%. Results of 215 competed satisfaction surveys were 100% positive. Of 67 unique protocols analyzed for outcomes of the consultation, 73% were subsequently approved within 14 days. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Overall, we have found the Liaison Service to be a popular addition to research support, and plan to continue the service. We will continue to evaluate its user satisfaction and usefulness. Additional focus will be placed on whether the Service can improve approval times for human subjects research for protocols using the Liaison Service.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      3202 Columbia University’s Personalized IRB Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 2.5 years
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      3202 Columbia University’s Personalized IRB Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 2.5 years
      Available formats
      ×

      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      3202 Columbia University’s Personalized IRB Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 2.5 years
      Available formats
      ×

Copyright

This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.

3202 Columbia University’s Personalized IRB Liaison Service: Evaluation over its initial 2.5 years

  • Nancy Green (a1), Zainab Abedin (a1), Allan Teller (a1), Kawthar Muhammad (a1), Brenda Ruotolo (a1), Deborah F. Stiles (a1) and Rui Ferreira (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed