Independent Reviews |
|
|
Shared Information Systems |
▪ Standardized application forms (e.g. a single application that can be submitted to multiple IRBs)
▪ Shared access to review documents
▪ Shared electronic submission systems
|
|
Open Communication |
▪ Communication across IRBs (staff)
▪ Communication across IRB members
▪ Designated contacts for questions across IRBs
|
|
Availability of Consultants for Review |
▪ Designated consultants to fill knowledge gaps (e.g. scientific, regulatory, experience with the local setting, etc).
|
|
Division of Roles/Facilitated Review |
▪ IRBs divide review tasks and inform each others’ reviews
▪ Timing and order of IRB reviews is specified
▪ The review of another IRB may be used to inform subsequent reviews
▪ The primary review is done by one IRB,a preserving an opportunity for input from the local IRB before the review is finalized
▪ In the limit, IRBs may fully rely on the judgments of another (e.g., IRB of record)
|
|
Joint Review/Combined IRB |
▪ Members of multiple IRBs form a joint review committee
▪ Regional IRBs are formed, comprised of members from multiple IRBs
|
▪ University of Minnesota Collaborative IRB (Vegoe 2012);
▪ Michigan State University Community Research IRB (McNeil 2007);
▪ Dartmouth-MUHAS Joint IRB(AITRP 2012);
▪ Indiana University-Moi University Joint IRB (RePORT 2012b);
▪ Biomedical Research Alliance of New York (BRANY 2012);
▪ Regional Ethics Committees (Wood et al. 2004).
|