Medical Science Educator

, Volume 28, Issue 4, pp 715–720 | Cite as

Experiences of Health Professions Educators Utilizing Multiple Institutional Review Boards for Collaborative Research

  • Rebecca D. BlanchardEmail author
  • Lisa Howley
  • Alisa Nagler
  • Gerald E. Crites
Original Research



This study describes the experiences and perspectives of health professions educators around institutional review board (IRB) review of multi-institutional education research.


This survey study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from members of three of the four geographic regions of the AAMC Group on Educational Affairs (GEA) as well as a snowball sample from the fourth region, where access to the listserv was not possible. Quantitative data is described and qualitative comments were coded and themed.


Ninety-six percent of the 151 respondents considered multi-institutional incredibly or somewhat valuable to their educational research goals. Sixty-two percent had submitted at least one project to multiple institutions for review. Of 57 respondents, 21 identified disagreements in the type of IRB review required (exempt, expedited, or full-board review). Disagreements between IRBs are also reported, including changes in wording or informed consent procedures. Of the 36 participants who noted disagreement between IRBs for any changes, only three participants believed that the process significantly improved the research subject protections.


Most health professions education researchers across the USA and Canada appreciated the value and role of IRB review and expressed frustration in the face of review that seemingly did not result in meaningful improvements. Final changes to the federal Common Rule call for a single-IRB review in multi-institutional research, particularly for low-risk studies. This change on the horizon could not only mitigate current concerns but also bolster the proliferation of multi-institutional research studies in health professions education.


Institutional review board (IRB) Education research Multi-institutional collaboration Ethics 


Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was approved by the University of Georgia Institutional Review Board.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Office for Human Research Protections. IRB Guideb. Accessed April 7, 2017.
  2. 2.
    Greene S, Geiger A. A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve Institutional Review Board approval. [review] [47 refs]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(8):784–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Check D, Weinfurt K, Dombeck C, Kramer J, Flynn K. Use of central institutional review boards for multicenter clinical trials in the United States: a review of the literature. Clin Trials. 2013;10(4):560–7. Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abbott L, Grady C. A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: what we know and what we still need to learn. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2011;6(1):3–19. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Thompson D, Kass N, Holzmueller C, et al. Variation in local institutional review board evaluations of a multicenter patient safety study. J Healthc Qual. 2012;34(4):33–9. Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blanchard RD, Artino AR, Visintainer PF. Applying clinical research skills to conduct education research: important recommendations for success. J Grad Med Educ. 2014;6(4):619–22. Scholar
  7. 7.
    DeMeo SD, Nagler A, Heflin MT. Development of a health professions education research-specific institutional review board template. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2016;91(2):229–32. Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johansson AC, Durning SJ, Gruppen LD, Olson ME, Schwartzstein RM, Higgins PA. Perspective: medical education research and the institutional review board: reexamining the process. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2011;86(7):809–17. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kano M, Getrich CM, Romney C, Sussman AL, Williams RL. Costs and inconsistencies in US IRB review of low-risk medical education research. Med Educ. 2015;49(6):634–7. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, Eacker A, Harper W, Massie FS Jr, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med J Assoc Am Med Coll. 2007;82(7):654–60. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Harvie H, Lowenstein L, Omotosho T, Sanses T, Molden S, Hardy J, et al. Institutional review board variability in minimal-risk multicenter urogynecology studies. Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg. 2012;18(2):89–92. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ravina B, Deuel L, Siderowf A, Dorsey E. Local institutional review board (IRB) review of a multicenter trial: local costs without local context. Ann Neurol. 2010;67(2):258–60. Scholar
  13. 13.
    National Institutes of Health. Final NIH policy use single institutional rev board multisite res. Accessed April 7, 2017.

Copyright information

© International Association of Medical Science Educators 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Educational Affairs–Baystate HealthUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School-BaystateSpringfieldUSA
  2. 2.Strategic Initiatives & Partnerships in Medical EducationAssociation of American Medical CollegesWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.American College of SurgeonsChicagoUSA
  4. 4.Duke University School of MedicineDurhamUSA
  5. 5.Augusta University/University of Georgia Medical PartnershipAthensUSA

Personalised recommendations