Schizophrenia Research
Volume 122, Issue 1 , Pages 206-212, September 2010

The investigator and the IRB: A survey of depression and schizophrenia researchers

  • Bernard A. Fischer

      Affiliations

    • Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 55 Wade Avenue, P.O. Box 21247, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA
    • Veterans Affairs Capital Network (VISN 5) Mental Illness Research, Education, and Clinical Center (MIRECC), VA Maryland Health Care System, 10 North Greene Street, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Maryland Psychiatric Research Center P.O. Box 21247 Baltimore, MD 21228, USA. Tel.: +1 410 402 7113; fax: +1 410 402 7198.
    • ,
  • Praveen George

      Affiliations

    • Maryland Psychiatric Research Center, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 55 Wade Avenue, P.O. Box 21247, Baltimore, MD 21228, USA
    • The Shriver Center, University of Maryland Baltimore County, 1000 Hilltop Circle, Baltimore, MD 21250, USA

Received 24 August 2009; received in revised form 15 December 2009; accepted 21 December 2009. published online 11 January 2010.

Abstract 

Despite the integral part Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) play in U.S. research, research on IRBs is lacking. This is especially true in the area of mental health investigator–IRB interactions. It was hypothesized that schizophrenia researchers would have a different experience with IRBs as compared to depression researchers. This would include longer turn-around time and fewer protocols approved on first submission. It was also thought that schizophrenia researchers would be more hesitant to submit ethically complex protocols for IRB review. 396 NIH-funded schizophrenia and depression investigators were invited to participate in a survey study on IRBs. 108 usable responses were returned, 45 of which were from schizophrenia researchers.

Schizophrenia researchers were significantly less likely to submit ethically complex protocols for IRB review than depression researchers even when controlling for academic rank, years of research experience, type of research done, and the need to submit to multiple IRBs. However, there was no significant difference between researcher groups in IRB review turn-around time or initial approval rates. As a group, respondents found IRB submission paperwork burdensome but necessary and were almost evenly split as to whether IRB comments were helpful (54.8%) or not (45.2%). Time to initial review was 3weeks or longer for most respondents. 94.4% agreed IRBs should enforce subject privacy and 68.2% agreed they should monitor conflict of interest, but only 37.% agreed IRBs should review study design. Conclusions are that 1. the population studied may have profound impacts on the type of protocols submitted to IRBs even within the field of mental health, 2. IRBs may not draw as large a distinction between depression and schizophrenia protocols as researchers believe, and 3. facilitating IRB review by eliminating evaluation of design may be possible if the protocol has already been vetted by a credible funding agency (such as the U.S. National Institutes of Health).

Keywords: IRB, Depression, Schizophrenia

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0920-9964(09)00610-0

doi:10.1016/j.schres.2009.12.019

Schizophrenia Research
Volume 122, Issue 1 , Pages 206-212, September 2010

Article Tools