TITLE

Take steps now to reduce burden

PUB. DATE
September 2012
SOURCE
IRB Advisor;Sep2012, Vol. 12 Issue 9, p103
SOURCE TYPE
Periodical
DOC. TYPE
Article
ABSTRACT
The article discusses some of the steps that Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) can take to work within the current regulations and achieve the Department of Health and Human Service's (DHHS's) goals of lessening the burden on investigators and IRBs while still protecting subjects. Jeffrey Cooper, consultant to IRBs says they should find ways to use exemption determinations and expedited review whenever possible for research that doesn't involve human subjects or minimal risk to subjects.
ACCESSION #
79459543

 

Related Articles

  • New Rules for Research with Human Participants? Berg, Jessica; Deming, Nicole // Hastings Center Report;Nov2011, Vol. 41 Issue 6, p10 

    The article discusses the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) pertaining to the rules governing oversight of research on human subjects published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Office of Science and Technology. Among the rules covered are permission of...

  • CNE/CME QUESTIONS.  // IRB Advisor;Oct2011, Vol. 11 Issue 10, p108 

    A quiz related to the topics discussed within the journal, including proposed Common Rule changes for institutional review boards (IRBs) and biobanks, is presented.

  • Common Rule makeover denotes research reform.  // IRB Advisor;Sep2011, Vol. 11 Issue 9, p89 

    The article discusses the proposed revision of the Common Rule by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), which aims to streamline the clinical research process and alter the current human subjects protection regulations. The concerns addressed in an advance notice of proposed...

  • Risk-benefit assessment: One size doesn't fit all.  // IRB Advisor;Sep2013, Vol. 13 Issue 9, p97 

    The article discusses the risk-benefit assessment by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) with the use of encryption software which lessens confidentiality risks. Developed by Jean Larson, community outreach manager at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, the Human Research Protection...

  • Audit toolbag puts focus on improvement.  // IRB Advisor;Mar2012, Vol. 12 Issue 3, p34 

    The article discusses an audit program used by Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center (DF/HCC) to find areas in human subject's protection that need improvement. It mentions that the quality assurance (QA) auditing team has added two new review types in the program namely, targeted audits and risk...

  • Exempt, expedited studies face ANPRM changes.  // IRB Advisor;Sep2011, Vol. 11 Issue 9, p90 

    The article reports the extensive changes proposed by Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to the handling of exempt and expedited studies. It mentions the proposed changes would expand the current exemption categories, and the excused category will take in minimal risk social and...

  • CNE/CME QUESTIONS.  // IRB Advisor;Dec2011, Vol. 11 Issue 12, p132 

    No abstract available.

  • Common Rule tissue changes elicit objections.  // Clinical Trials Administrator;Nov2011, Vol. 9 Issue 11, p125 

    The article offers information on the proposed change to the research Common Rule regarding the strengthening of informed consent protections related to research involving biospecimens. It discusses whether such rules may lead to collateral damage to the research enterprise. Included are...

  • Do IRB meetings follow the Common Rule?  // IRB Advisor;May2013, Vol. 13 Issue 5, p56 

    The article discusses how often Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in an attempt to meet deadlines, overlook following common rules. A recent study revealed that of all the rules to be followed by IRBs, only informed consent was universally discussed at each IRB meeting. Charles Lidz, a research...

Share

Read the Article

Courtesy of NEW JERSEY STATE LIBRARY

Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics