1 / 7

Archived File

Archived File. The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

jalene
Download Presentation

Archived File

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Archived File The file below has been archived for historical reference purposes only. The content and links are no longer maintained and may be outdated. See the OER Public Archive Home Page for more details about archived files.

  2. CURRENT I/C PRACTICES ON INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN PEER REVIEW NIH PEER REVIEW ADVISORY COMMITTEE January 23, 2006 Olivia Bartlett, Ph.D. Chief, Research Programs Review Branch, NCI, and Chair, NIH Review Policy Committee

  3. SUMMARY OF I/C PRACTICES • I/C RPC reps surveyed in December 2005 • Responses from 16 I/Cs • 7 responding I/Cs have involved consumer advocates in peer review of clinical research • Routinely: • NIAID – since ~ 1990 • NCI – since ~1997 • NIDA -- since June 2001 • NIMH – since 2001 • Occasionally/sporadically: • NINDS • NCMHD • NICHD

  4. REASONS FOR NOT INVOLVING CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN PEER REVIEW • Basic research portfolio (3 I/Cs) • Diverse constituency groups/disease areas (2 I/Cs) • Use other “non-research” reviewers, such as nurses or clinician-assistants, to represent patient/human subject perspective • Competing advocacy groups in disease areas • Don’t review clinical trials applications “in house” • Lay persons not likely to have adequate expertise or training to evaluate according to the review criteria • Poor experience with involvement of consumer advocates/lay members in the past • Concerns about confidentiality • “No special reason”

  5. ROUTINE INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN PEER REVIEW BY 4 I/CS • Involved in review of clinical research, treatment research/clinical trials, and health services research • Terminology varies • NIAID, NCI: Consumer advocates • NIDA: Community reviewers or public members • NIMH, NICHD: Public reviewers/participants • Goals • Provide perspective of patients/target populations • Provide expertise about feasibility of proposed intervention, recruitment, retention in “real world” situations • Comment about HS protection and G/M/C inclusion

  6. ROUTINE INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN PEER REVIEW BY 4 I/CS • Identification and Recruitment • NCI – CARRA program • NIAID, NIMH, NIDA – SRAs identify through meetings, internet searches, recommendations, and personal knowledge • Special Training • NCI – CARRA program; orientation book and glossary • NIMH – 1-day training; conference call before review • NIAID, NIDA – SRA provides standard and adapted review instructions

  7. ROUTINE INVOLVEMENT OF CONSUMER ADVOCATES IN PEER REVIEW BY 4 I/CS • Review Assignments • Given specific assignments • Write and post critiques in IAR • NCI has template for comments, focusing on HS issues • Scoring • Consumer advocates/public members score applications • Proportion of Review Committee • Generally 1 or 2 per committee • Membership on Standing Committees • NCI, NIDA, NIMH – yes, on clinical review committees • NIAID – no; reviews by SEPs

More Related