cphs the cliff notes n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
CPHS: The Cliff Notes PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
CPHS: The Cliff Notes

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 42

CPHS: The Cliff Notes - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

CPHS: The Cliff Notes. Robert Nobles, MPH Assistant Director Office of Research. Whitney, et al. Article Overview. Qualitative e-mail survey with 14% response rate Population: federally funded principal investigators Comments were analyzed to show underlying themes

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

CPHS: The Cliff Notes

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
cphs the cliff notes

CPHS: The Cliff Notes

Robert Nobles, MPH

Assistant Director

Office of Research

whitney et al article overview
Whitney, et al. Article Overview
  • Qualitative e-mail survey with 14% response rate
  • Population: federally funded principal investigators
  • Comments were analyzed to show underlying themes
  • In general, there was consensus that it is important to protect human subjects from research abuse, but disagreement over how well the IRB system is functioning
whitney et al article overview 2
Whitney, et al. Article Overview (2)
  • Six primary questions in survey:

1. What has been your experience with the human subjects protection system in general? What do you like? What would you change?

2. What has been your experience with the informed consent process with potential subjects? Is there anything you would change?

3. Do you feel your IRB does its job well? If so, what helps you the most? If not, how could it improve?

whitney et al article overview 21
Whitney, et al. Article Overview (2)
  • Six survey questions continued:

4. Do you feel that your IRB usually understands your protocols adequately?

5. Have you ever served on an IRB?

6. What other thoughts do you have on informed consent and the human subjects protection system?

whitney et al article overview 3
Whitney, et al. Article Overview (3)
  • Positive Comments:
    • IRB functions as a safeguard against overoptimistic investigators; protects subjects against both nonphysical and physical harms; and promotes “social justice.”
  • Negative Comments:
  • The constraints placed upon investigators and indeed research subjects by OHRP and so-called ethicists approaches the absurd.
whitney et al article overview 4
Whitney, et al. Article Overview (4)
  • Negative Comments Continued
    • Getting protocols approved gets worse each year because you have to document more and more and more USELESS stuff.
    • For most of my work I receive coded samples devoid of patient identifiers, yet I have to fill in all sorts of crap and repeat over and over again that I couldn't track down these subjects if I tried.
january 15 2009 presentation outline
January 15, 2009 – Presentation Outline
  • Research Quiz
  • IRB Overview
  • HIPAA Documents
  • Research Misconduct
  • Obtaining Informed Consent
  • Questions and Answers
research quiz
Research Quiz
  • Question #1:
    • What is the purpose of an IRB?
  • Question #2:
    • What is the definition of research and how does research differ from standard practice?
research quiz 2
Research Quiz (2)
  • Question #3:
    • What are quality improvement projects and when do they qualify as research projects?
  • Question #4:
    • How long does it take for studies to get approved? Why?
irb overview
IRB Overview
  • Mission:
    • To protect the rights and welfare of human research participants.
  • Definition of Research:
    • Systematic investigation, including research development, testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
key features of research
Key Features Of Research
  • Intent: generate new knowledge, principles, or theories that revises or improves existing knowledge, programs or processes.
  • Systematic collection and/or analysis of data.
  • Anticipated resultsthat are valid and generalizable
functions of the irb
Functions of the IRB
  • Reviewing research to ensure:
    • Risks are minimized
    • Risks are reasonable vs. benefits
    • Selection is equitable
    • Informed Consent is obtained
    • Data and Safety are protected/monitored
    • Privacy and confidentiality are upheld
    • Vulnerable population protections are enhanced
cphs logic model

Comply, critique

Protocol submission

  • Science and logistics enhanced
  • Consent is representative
  • Cultural norms enforced
  • Transparent review process
  • Protection of subjects through record review
  • Trained/ethical investigators
  • QA and QI
  • Subject consent verified/ rights reiterated
  • Quality IRB program implemented

Approve, disapprove, or alter submission

  • Federal Regulations
  • Investigators (faculty/staff/students)
  • Committee Members (faculty and community volunteers)
  • CPHS Staff
  • Research Participants
  • Research Sponsors (funding entities)
  • Expert Consultants
  • IRIS (electronic reporting system)
  • Space Resources
  • Monitoring Program
  • Research Intermediary
  • Collaborating agencies
  • UT Legal Affairs

Protocol review

Simplify, correct

Modify consent forms

Appropriateness confirmed


Protect Human Subjects in Research


Fully informed

Monitoring/ enforce-ment


Trust, efficiency

Open Communication

Competency gained


Record keeping, verification


Verification, reduce coercion

Research Intermediary

CPHS Logic Model
materials submitted for review


Consent Forms

Letters of Approval/Cooperation

Recruitment Flyers


Investigator Brochure

Pediatric Risk Assessment

Grant Application

Data Collection Forms (questionnaires)


*Change Request

*Continuing Review

Materials Submitted for Review
protocol elements
Protocol Elements
  • literature review/current state of knowledge
  • justification for the study
  • potential use of study findings
  • study design and locations
  • hypothesis 
  • Methodology
  • Description and source of study population
  • Inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Number of participants
  • Sampling and participant selection
protocol elements 2
Protocol Elements (2)
  • Recruitment/enrollment activities
  • Consenting process;
  • Confidentiality/privacy
  • Data monitoring
  • Explanation of study instruments
  • Data analysis plan.
types of review
Types of Review
  • Exempt Research
    • Case studies and retrospective chart reviews
  • Expedited Review
    • Minimal Risk Protocols and minor changes to approved research
    • Collection of blood samples
    • Prospective collection of biological specimens by noninvasive means
    • Collection of data through noninvasive procedures routinely employed in clinical practice
    • Research on individual or group characteristics or behavior
    • Research employing survey, interview, oral history, focus group, program evaluation, human factors evaluation, or quality assurance methodologies
types of review1
Types of Review
  • Full Committee Review
    • Protocols that have risks that are unknown or more than minimal
    • Clinical trials
      • Including studies on drugs, devices, and procedures
    • Cohort Studies
    • Case Control Studies
    • Cross-sectional study techniques in certain settings
    • Bio-banking and sample repositories
hipaa documents and the irb
HIPAA Documents and the IRB
  • HIPAA Exempt
  • HIPAA Waivers subject to approval
    • Retrospective Chart Review
    • Screening and Recruitment
    • Decedent Data
  • HIPAA Authorization for PHI
misconduct defined
Misconduct Defined
  • (1) Fabrication, falsification, plagiarism and other forms of misappropriation of ideas, or additional practices that seriously deviate from those that are commonly accepted in the research community for proposing, conducting, or reporting research.
  • (2) Material failure to comply with federal and University requirements for the protection of researchers, human subjects, or the general public or for ensuring the welfare of laboratory animals.
misconduct defined 2
Misconduct Defined (2)
  • (3) Failure to adhere to other material legal requirements governing the field of research.
  • (4) Failure to comply with established standards regarding author names on publications.
  • (5) Retaliation of any kind against a person who reported or provided information about suspected or alleged misconduct and who has not acted in bad faith.
additional definitions
Additional Definitions
  • Plagiarism – appropriation of another person’s ideas, processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit
  • Fabrication – making up data or results and recording or reporting them.
  • Falsification – manipulating research materials, equipment, or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
additional definitions 2
Additional Definitions (2)
  • Noncompliance: Noncompliance is a failure by an investigator to abide by research related requirements, good clinical practice requirements, CPHS requirements and applicable regulatory requirements. :
    • Failure to obtain approval for research prior to initiating the research activities,
    • Continuing research activities beyond the expiration date without obtaining continuing review approval,
    • Failure to obtain informed consent when required,
    • Failure to file an adverse event report,
    • Implementing changes to the protocol without prior approval.
examples of violated research ethics
Examples of Violated Research Ethics
  • 1945-1946 - Nuremburg Trials
    • Included studies on hypothermia, infectious disease, altitude, pharmacologics, sterilization, surgery and traumatic injuries
  • 1950’s – Willowbrook Hepatitis Study (New York)
    • Intentionally infected healthy “retarded” children by feeding them feces from children with active hepatitis (with food)
  • 1955 – The Wichita Jury Study (Kansas)
    • Audiotaped jurors to analyze decision-making without consent
  • 1962 – The Thalidomide Experience (nationwide)
    • Investigational treatment given to pregnant women to alleviate “unpleasant symptoms”
examples of violated research ethics cont
Examples of Violated Research Ethics Cont….
  • 1966 – “Ethics of Clinical Research” published by Dr. Beecher (Harvard Medical School), NE Journal of Medicine
    • Cited ethical violations in 22 published articles
  • 1960’s – Jewish Chronic Disease Hospital Studies (New York)
    • Injected live cancer cells in demented patients with weakened immune systems
  • 1960’s – Milgram Studies of Obedience to Authority (Yale University)
    • Participants deceived into thinking the study was evaluating the role of negative reinforcement on learning
  • 1970’s – San Antonio Contraception Study
    • Clinic randomized patients to active birth control or placebo
examples of violated research ethics cont1
Examples of Violated Research Ethics Cont….
  • 1970’s – Tearoom Trade Study
    • PhD Dissertation of Laud Humphrey’s from Washington University
    • Observed men participating in sexual activities, served as a “watch queen”, copied license plates, and followed up with men one year later in disguise to gather additional information (i.e. marital status, employment, etc.)
  • 1932 – 1972 – Tuskegee Syphilis Study (Alabama)
    • Evaluated the natural history of untreated syphilis
    • Led to the creation of NIH Office for the Protection
    • from Research Risks(now OHRP) and IRB’s
oversight of human subject research
Oversight Of Human Subject Research
  • 1949 – Nuremberg Code
  • 1964 – WMA Declaration of Helsinki
  • 1966 – PHS policy leading to IRBs
  • 1974 – National Research Act of 1974 established 45 CFR 46
  • 1978 – The Belmont Report
  • 1991 – Common rule
overview of informed consent process and forms
Overview of Informed Consent Process and Forms


informed consent overview
Informed Consent Overview
  • All modern codes of ethics concerning research with human subjects affirm the moral importance of a principle of informed consent.
  • “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”
overview 2
Overview (2)
  • Obtaining consent is an ongoing process of communication and mutual understanding
  • The process is misrepresented as:
    • A piece of paper
    • A moment in time
    • A legal contract
overview 3
Overview (3)
  • Must be obtained for each research subject
  • Must be obtained prior to initiation of screening procedures
  • Must be tailored to the level of understanding
  • If a medical term is essential, a lay definition is needed
  • Sufficient opportunity must be given for consideration, no coercion
four tenets
Four Tenets
  • Accurate Information
  • Understanding
  • Voluntariness
  • Decision Making Capacity
practical benefits
Practical Benefits
  • Increases subject adherence to the protocol and the quality of the research.
  • Provides the benefit of an additional layer of risk review tailored to the interests of the individual subject.
  • Fosters public trust
four reasons to waive informed consent
Four Reasons to Waive Informed Consent
  • 1) Investigations that do not constitute research involving human subjects
  • 2) Human subjects research that is exempt from compliance with federal regulations
four reasons to waive informed consent 2
Four Reasons to Waive Informed Consent (2)
  • 3) Non-exempt human subjects research in which it is not possible to obtain participants’ written informed consent
    • For reasons of age, cognitive impairment, or the like, some individuals are incapable of providing informed consent
    • Research in emergency medicine
four reasons to waive informed consent 21
Four Reasons to Waive Informed Consent (2)
  • 4) Non-exempt human subjects research in which it is not desirable to obtain participants’ written informed consent.
    • a signed informed consent document may pose a risk to subjects, and
    • obtaining informed consent may diminish the scientific merit of the research.
  • https://iris.uth.tmc.edu/Login.jsp
  • Electronic submission of protocols to the IRB
    • Initial submission
    • Change requests and amendments
    • Continuing reviews
    • Adverse Events, etc.
  • Electronic routing and review by CPHS
  • Notifications are electronic and available via e-mail and within iRIS
important information
Important Information
  • iRIS Web Site: http://iris.uth.tmc.edu
  • CPHS Web Site: http://www.uth.tmc.edu/orsc/index.html
  • iRIS assistance: 713-500-7960
  • Office of Research Support Committees: 713-500-7943
  • Robert Nobles: 713-500-7937