Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight

Margaret M Byrne, Jeanne Speckman, Ken Getz, Jeremy Sugarman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown wide differences between institutions in economies of scale with regard to the costs of institutional review board (IRB) oversight of research. In this study, the authors explored variability among IRB costs, taking into account organizational size, components of the costs of oversight, and protocol type. METHOD: The authors conducted a survey of academic medical centers to collect information on resource utilization associated with IRB oversight in 2002. They used national cost weights to assign a cost to each type of resource used, and summed weighted resource utilization for IRB costs. Descriptive statistics were generated for costs over all, tertile of protocol volume, cost component, and type of review. They also determined where the greatest cost variability is found. RESULTS: IRB costs per protocol reviewed are highly variable both overall and within tertiles of volume. Higher-volume institutions have lower costs, which is indicative of economies of scale. However, not all components of IRB costs (e.g., board time) are subject to economies of scale. Expedited reviews of protocols are not less expensive at low-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: IRB costs for oversight are highly variable, and only some of the variation may be attributable to economies of scale. Given such wide variation in costs, the authors conclude that some institutions are conducting reviews in a manner that is inefficient or of low quality. Future work is needed to determine specific practices in reviews, and what leads to the best quality and most efficient oversight and review system.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)708-712
Number of pages5
JournalAcademic Medicine
Volume81
Issue number8
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 1 2006

Fingerprint

Research Ethics Committees
Costs and Cost Analysis
costs
economy
utilization
resources
Utilization Review
descriptive statistics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Nursing(all)
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
  • Education

Cite this

Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight. / Byrne, Margaret M; Speckman, Jeanne; Getz, Ken; Sugarman, Jeremy.

In: Academic Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 8, 01.08.2006, p. 708-712.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Byrne, MM, Speckman, J, Getz, K & Sugarman, J 2006, 'Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight', Academic Medicine, vol. 81, no. 8, pp. 708-712. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200608000-00006
Byrne, Margaret M ; Speckman, Jeanne ; Getz, Ken ; Sugarman, Jeremy. / Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight. In: Academic Medicine. 2006 ; Vol. 81, No. 8. pp. 708-712.
@article{562813ec760042ea9c106455c185977d,
title = "Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown wide differences between institutions in economies of scale with regard to the costs of institutional review board (IRB) oversight of research. In this study, the authors explored variability among IRB costs, taking into account organizational size, components of the costs of oversight, and protocol type. METHOD: The authors conducted a survey of academic medical centers to collect information on resource utilization associated with IRB oversight in 2002. They used national cost weights to assign a cost to each type of resource used, and summed weighted resource utilization for IRB costs. Descriptive statistics were generated for costs over all, tertile of protocol volume, cost component, and type of review. They also determined where the greatest cost variability is found. RESULTS: IRB costs per protocol reviewed are highly variable both overall and within tertiles of volume. Higher-volume institutions have lower costs, which is indicative of economies of scale. However, not all components of IRB costs (e.g., board time) are subject to economies of scale. Expedited reviews of protocols are not less expensive at low-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: IRB costs for oversight are highly variable, and only some of the variation may be attributable to economies of scale. Given such wide variation in costs, the authors conclude that some institutions are conducting reviews in a manner that is inefficient or of low quality. Future work is needed to determine specific practices in reviews, and what leads to the best quality and most efficient oversight and review system.",
author = "Byrne, {Margaret M} and Jeanne Speckman and Ken Getz and Jeremy Sugarman",
year = "2006",
month = "8",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1097/00001888-200608000-00006",
language = "English",
volume = "81",
pages = "708--712",
journal = "Academic Medicine",
issn = "1040-2446",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "8",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Variability in the costs of institutional review board oversight

AU - Byrne, Margaret M

AU - Speckman, Jeanne

AU - Getz, Ken

AU - Sugarman, Jeremy

PY - 2006/8/1

Y1 - 2006/8/1

N2 - BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown wide differences between institutions in economies of scale with regard to the costs of institutional review board (IRB) oversight of research. In this study, the authors explored variability among IRB costs, taking into account organizational size, components of the costs of oversight, and protocol type. METHOD: The authors conducted a survey of academic medical centers to collect information on resource utilization associated with IRB oversight in 2002. They used national cost weights to assign a cost to each type of resource used, and summed weighted resource utilization for IRB costs. Descriptive statistics were generated for costs over all, tertile of protocol volume, cost component, and type of review. They also determined where the greatest cost variability is found. RESULTS: IRB costs per protocol reviewed are highly variable both overall and within tertiles of volume. Higher-volume institutions have lower costs, which is indicative of economies of scale. However, not all components of IRB costs (e.g., board time) are subject to economies of scale. Expedited reviews of protocols are not less expensive at low-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: IRB costs for oversight are highly variable, and only some of the variation may be attributable to economies of scale. Given such wide variation in costs, the authors conclude that some institutions are conducting reviews in a manner that is inefficient or of low quality. Future work is needed to determine specific practices in reviews, and what leads to the best quality and most efficient oversight and review system.

AB - BACKGROUND: Previous studies have shown wide differences between institutions in economies of scale with regard to the costs of institutional review board (IRB) oversight of research. In this study, the authors explored variability among IRB costs, taking into account organizational size, components of the costs of oversight, and protocol type. METHOD: The authors conducted a survey of academic medical centers to collect information on resource utilization associated with IRB oversight in 2002. They used national cost weights to assign a cost to each type of resource used, and summed weighted resource utilization for IRB costs. Descriptive statistics were generated for costs over all, tertile of protocol volume, cost component, and type of review. They also determined where the greatest cost variability is found. RESULTS: IRB costs per protocol reviewed are highly variable both overall and within tertiles of volume. Higher-volume institutions have lower costs, which is indicative of economies of scale. However, not all components of IRB costs (e.g., board time) are subject to economies of scale. Expedited reviews of protocols are not less expensive at low-volume institutions. CONCLUSIONS: IRB costs for oversight are highly variable, and only some of the variation may be attributable to economies of scale. Given such wide variation in costs, the authors conclude that some institutions are conducting reviews in a manner that is inefficient or of low quality. Future work is needed to determine specific practices in reviews, and what leads to the best quality and most efficient oversight and review system.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746716793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746716793&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1097/00001888-200608000-00006

DO - 10.1097/00001888-200608000-00006

M3 - Article

C2 - 16868423

AN - SCOPUS:33746716793

VL - 81

SP - 708

EP - 712

JO - Academic Medicine

JF - Academic Medicine

SN - 1040-2446

IS - 8

ER -