Survey of U.S. Boards That Review Mental Health-Related Research

Abstract

We obtained data on Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) that review mental health–related applications (MHRAs) in a national survey of institutions with federally assured human research protection programs. Approximately 57% of IRBs review MHRAs, and among these a small percentage may not have mental health experts on their committees (5%). Moreover, mental health experts on IRB committees at high research volume institutions are carrying substantially greater workloads than their lower volume counterparts. In terms of committee demographics, more women (36%) are serving as IRB Chairs on committees that review MHRAs than expected from their representation on medical or university faculties; ethnic minority faculty have lower representation among Chairs than might be expected from their overall faculty representation. Our findings suggest the need for additional studies to (a) examine if the number of mental health experts on IRBs should be increased particularly among IRBs reviewing a high volume of MHRAs, (b) determine if the breadth of expertise among IRB mental health experts corresponds to the range of substantive and methodological approaches represented by the mental health protocols under review, and (c) examine if recruiting IRB scientific expertise from outside an institution, a more common practice among smaller research entities, impacts review quality.

Ethics in Psychiatric Research: A Review of 25 Years of NIH-Funded Empirical Research Projects

“…Catania et al (2008) learned that 95% of IRBs that regularly review mental health research protocols have one or more mental health experts on their committees. But further research is needed to determine the specific expertise they possess (e.g., clinical vs. research expertise) and whether community representatives adequately include mental health service users or those familiar with the concerns of service users.…”

Research Participants' Perspectives on Genotype-Driven Research Recruitment

“…First, we do not have data about the characteristics of chairs who did not respond to our survey and thus cannot assess potential response bias; in general, the demographic characteristics of our respondents were similar to those found in surveys of IRBs on other topics. 20 Second, because our survey comprised primarily closed-ended questions and was completed online, we were unable to probe for even more nuanced views or to explore other factors that chairs themselves might have identified as influencing their opinions. Third, to constrain the survey to a reasonable length, we did not include questions covering every possible issue (e.g., whether genetic research results are produced in a CLIA-certified laboratory and the attendant implications for disclosure to participants 21 ).…”

Institutional Review Boards’ Use and Understanding of Certificates of Confidentiality

“…However, several factors may limit the interpretation of our results. First, we do not have data about the characteristics of chairs who did not respond to our survey and thus cannot assess potential response bias; in general, the demographic characteristics of our respondents were similar to those found in surveys of IRBs on other topics [23], [24]. Second, our online survey comprised primarily closed-ended questions and we had variable power to detect statistically significant differences; further, we had the resources to conduct only a relatively small number of follow-up interviews.…”