Medical schools' attitudes and perceptions regarding the use of central institutional review boards.

Abstract

To investigate the current practices, attitudes, perceptions, and future plans of U.S. medical schools regarding the use of central institutional review boards (IRBs) to review research involving human participants. In 2003, a survey instrument was distributed via fax and e-mail to the deans of research at the 125 accredited U.S. medical schools. Each dean was asked to have the instrument completed by the official at that school who decided on the use of a central versus local IRB. The survey instrument consisted primarily of a variety of closed-ended questions. Eighty-eight medical schools (69.8%) completed the instrument; 76% of these indicated that they had never used a central IRB and 24% had used a central IRB. Most of the respondents expressed no interest in using a central IRB in the future because they believed that their local IRB was working efficiently, and they were concerned about issues of institutional liability and the loss of local representation in the review process. Of the medical schools that had used a central IRB, most were pleased with the performance of the central IRB and would continue to use a central IRB in the future. Of interest, most of these respondents did not agree that a central IRB had helped them to attract industry-sponsored research. In spite of much discussion about the advantages of central IRBs in expediting overview of human subjects research, especially in multicenter trials, the majority of medical schools surveyed had never used a central IRB and expressed no interest in doing so.