Search

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

This column describes the essential role of partnerships in the conduct of dissemination and implementation (D&I) research. This research field, which develops knowledge to support the integration of health information and evidence-based practices, has thrived in recent years through research initiatives by federal agencies, states, foundations, and other funders. The authors describe three ongoing studies anchored in research partnerships to improve the implementation of effective practices within various service systems. Inherent in the challenge of introducing evidence-based practices in clinical and community settings is the participation of a wide range of stakeholders who may influence D&I efforts. Opportunities to enhance partnerships in D&I research are described, specifically in light of recent initiatives led by the National Institutes of Health. Partnerships remain a crucial component of successful D&I research. The future of the field depends on the ability to utilize partnerships to conduct more rigorous and robust research.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has contributed to improvements in the health of the nation, but the pace of progress, particularly in the war on cancer, has been frustratingly slow. Departments of family medicine receive less NIH funding than all other specialties. Although numerous factors contribute to low family medicine funding levels, persistent undervaluing of primary care plays a paramount role. Fueled by the harsh reality that our nation's health is unconscionably poor, we are entering a new era in our nation's research enterprise, a virtual research revolution. The 3 components of this revolution are the NIH roadmap, personalized medicine, and the Clinical and Translational Science Awards. Each of these elements will contribute to a growing emphasis on translational research. Translational research demands formation of innovative structures in academic health centers (AHCs) to enable them to address questions of vital relevance to improving public health. Service research, funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and foundations, defines a new approach to research with high potential to improve the health of communities. To be a part of the research revolution, departments must rely on senior researchers to secure funding and provide mentorship for junior investigators. Junior investigators must relentlessly pursue answers to questions of direct relevance to improving health. Finally, department chairs have the obligation to identify research mentors, find ways to fund research gaps, and create a culture of scholarship and investigation. Advocating for AHCs to commit to improving the health of the regions they serve can have a substantial impact on the types of questions that centers choose to study and, ultimately, on the health of the communities they serve.