Table 1.

Change in proportion of Scientific Review Committees (SRCs) that met or exceeded prioritized criteria for policies and practices

Criterion	SRCs
	Baseline n = 30*		Intervention n = 29		Net change
	n	%	n	%	%
Review content
Review for scientific quality	26	86.7	29	100.0	13.3
Review for local operational feasibility	25	83.3	24	82.8	−0.5
Locally reviewed protocols	26	86.7	29	100.0	13.3
Centrally reviewed protocols	25	83.3	24	82.8	−0.5
Protocol eligibility
All protocols are eligible for SRC review or exemption criteria are limited to recommended types of protocols	23	76.7	26	89.7	13.0
Protocols that fit criteria for exemption can still be reviewed (includes SRCs that do not exempt protocols)	25	83.3	28	96.6	13.3
Institutional Review Board (IRB) and/or institutional officials may forward to the SRC any protocol at any time	21	70.0	26	89.7	19.7
Reviewers per protocol
At least one medical review	26	86.7	29	100.0	3.0
Statistician not also acting as a medical reviewer	4	13.3	15	53.6**	40.3
Content experts as needed	24	80.0	28	96.6	16.6
Reviewer qualifications
Have requisite expertise	25	83.3	29	100.0	16.7
Not on research team	22	73.3	27	93.1	19.8
No conflict of interest	21	70.0	25	86.2	16.2
Is available to perform review in timely manner	25	83.3	28	96.6	13.3
Is willing to undertake the task	25	83.3	28	96.6	13.3
Related institutional policies
Coordination of the SRC with the IRB	25	83.3	28	96.6	13.3
IRB has access to SRC review	24	80.0	27	93.1	13.1

^*Four sites without an SRC at baseline are included in the denominator as one SRC per site; each of these sites established a single SRC process at intervention.

^**Data are missing for one SRC. The denominator for this proportion is 28 instead of 29.