Abstract
This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches for obtaining IRB approval of multi-site studies.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 478-486 |
| Number of pages | 9 |
| Journal | Research in Nursing and Health |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 5 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2013 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Human subjects protection
- Human subjects research
- Institutional review board
- Qualitative
- Research ethics
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Nursing(all)
- Medicine(all)
Cite this
Investigators' successful strategies for working with institutional review boards. / Cartwright, Juliana C.; Hickman, Susan; Nelson, Christine A.; Knafl, Kathleen A.
In: Research in Nursing and Health, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2013, p. 478-486.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Investigators' successful strategies for working with institutional review boards
AU - Cartwright, Juliana C.
AU - Hickman, Susan
AU - Nelson, Christine A.
AU - Knafl, Kathleen A.
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches for obtaining IRB approval of multi-site studies.
AB - This study was designed to identify successful strategies used by investigators for working with their Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in conducting human subjects research. Telephone interviews were conducted with 46 investigators representing nursing, medicine, and social work. Interview transcripts were analyzed using qualitative descriptive methods. Investigators emphasized the importance of intentionally cultivating positive relationships with IRB staff and members, and managing bureaucracy. A few used evasive measures to avoid conflict with IRBs. Few successful strategies were identified for working with multiple IRBs. Although most investigators developed successful methods for working with IRBs, further research is needed on how differences in IRB culture affect human subjects protection, and on best approaches for obtaining IRB approval of multi-site studies.
KW - Human subjects protection
KW - Human subjects research
KW - Institutional review board
KW - Qualitative
KW - Research ethics
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891723419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891723419&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/nur.21553
DO - 10.1002/nur.21553
M3 - Article
C2 - 23813748
AN - SCOPUS:84891723419
VL - 36
SP - 478
EP - 486
JO - Research in Nursing and Health
JF - Research in Nursing and Health
SN - 0160-6891
IS - 5
ER -