Frequently Asked Questions

If your question is not addressed below, please contact the IRB Staff for more information.

About the IRB and IRB Review:
  - What is the Institutional Review Board?
  - What is research? 
  - What is a human subject? 
  - What about deceased individuals? 
  - How do I get more information about upcoming IRB deadlines or events?
  - Where can I get more information?

 

Training:
  - Does the IRB require training for investigators? 
  - What about investigators working with children?
  - My research group would like to attend a training presentation on a specific topic. Whom should we contact?

 

Submitting New Proposals:
General:  
  - How do I submit to the IRB?
  - Is my project subject to review by the IRB?
  - When is a research involving human subjects not subject to review by the IRB?
  - What is minimal risk?
  - I believe my study is exempt from IRB review. Can I go ahead?
  - I'd like to publish a case report. Do I need to submit anything to the IRB?
   
Specific types of studies: - I'm planning a chart review. What do I need to do?
  - My study involves cancer patients. Is there anything special I need to submit?
  - My study involves nursing staff. Is there anything special I need to submit?
   
AURA form questions: - I would like to pay or otherwise compensate my subjects. Is there a policy regarding payment?
  - When the IRB asks for number of subjects to be enrolled, what does this mean? What if I need to enroll more subjects?
  - Why does the IRB ask so many questions during initial review of a protocol?
   
Approval process: - How long will it take for my new protocol submission to be approved?
  - What happens between submission and approval?  
  - I submitted a protocol for expedited review. Why haven’t I received an approval letter yet? 
   
Funding: - My protocol is not funded by a grant or contract, but there is no option for “Not Applicable” under “Funding” on the protocol submission form. How do I indicate “N/A”?
  - My protocol is funded by a grant at another institution. What do I check on the submission form under “Funding”? What documentation should I submit to the IRB?
  - My grant has been submitted to the funding agency, but an award determination has not yet been made. How do I clarify this on the protocol submission form? Does the IRB still require a copy of my grant?
  - The project described in my funded grant has been approved by the IRB. Can I just list the IRB protocol number for that project in my grant?
  - I am submitting a grant for approval by the IRB. How much of the grant is needed? Can I just submit the science portion?

 

Continuing Review and Amendments:
  - I just had an amendment approved. Do I still need to submit a continuing review for that study?  
  - Can I submit a continuing review and an amendment at the same time? 
  - In what circumstances do I submit an amendment?  
  - How do I enroll an otherwise ineligible subject on a study? How can I slightly alter approved study procedures for one subject?
  - I have a patient waiting to be enrolled, but I recently submitted an amendment to change the consent form. Can the IRB process that amendment quickly so that I can enroll this patient?
  - My study was finally approved 5 months ago. Why is the IRB already sending me reminder notices about renewing the study? 
  - My study is closed to enrollment. Do I still have to renew it?
  - What safety events do I report at time of continuing review?
   
Literature search:
- Why do I have to do a literature search?
  - How should I conduct the literature search? What does the IRB require?
  - My study is closed to enrollment. Do I still need to perform a literature search?

 

Adverse Events/Unanticipated Problems:
  - An adverse event occurred on a different study and my sponsor is asking me to report it for my study. What do I do?
  - If an adverse event does not meet the IRB reporting criteria, does it need to be reported to the IRB? What if my sponsor tells me the adverse event must be reported?
  - My sponsor wants me to submit a list of AEs more frequently than at the time of continuing review. Should I submit these per the sponsor request?
  - What safety events do I report at time of continuing review?
  - What are a PI’s responsibilities in the event a subject discloses an intent to harm him or herself or others?

 

Recruitment and Consent:
Advertisements:  
  - I would like to recruit more subjects and want to increase the potential compensation amount for my study. Can I mention the amount that subjects will be paid in my study advertisement? 
  - I would like to recruit subjects through a temporary employment agency. Will this be acceptable to the IRB? 
Consent: - Is there a consent form template?
  - My sponsor is requesting that certain language be put in the consent form regarding research-related injury. Now the IRB is asking me to remove this language. Why?
  - When is it necessary to re-consent subjects?
Special populations:

- How do I enroll a subject who does not speak English?

  - How do I enroll a subject who does not read or write?


______________________________________________________________

About the IRB and IRB Review

What is the Institutional Review Board?
Federal regulations require an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to review research on human subjects if the research involves federal funding. The University of Chicago has determined that all research undertaken at this institution, or by those persons affiliated with this institution, must undergo a similar level of review as research that falls under federal regulations. The University has obtained a Federalwide Assurance (FWA), which signifies that the University and the University of Chicago Medical Center are in compliance with the Federal requirements for the protection of human subjects. For details on the University's FWA, please visit the FWA page or the University Research Administration's website.

The University of Chicago currently has five IRBs: 1 Social and Behavioral Sciences Division IRB, 1 Social Service Administration IRB, and 3 Biological Sciences Division IRBs (known as Committees A, B, and C). Each IRB is fully constituted with the appropriate number of scientific and non-scientific, affiliated and non-University-affiliated members, as well as members from different genders and ethnic backgrounds, as required by federal regulations. For current BSD IRB rosters, please see the FWA page.

The Biological Sciences Division (BSD) Institutional Review Boards are administered by the Office of Clinical Research. The BSD IRBs are responsible for all biological or medical research conducted at the University of Chicago and/or the University of Chicago Medical Center and all human subjects research conducted by UCMC faculty. If you are a BSD faculty member, the IRB submission system, AURA, will automatically route your submission to the BSD IRBs for review, regardless of the nature of the research and/or subject population. For more information on the Social Service Administration IRB or Social and Behavioral Sciences IRB, please follow the links above.


back to top back to top


What is research?
Research is defined by the Department of Health and Human Services as “a systematic investigation, including research, development, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge” (45 CFR46.102(d)). 

Research studies may involve a variety of invasive or non-invasive procedures, including removal of body tissues or fluids, administration of drugs, exposure to various forms of radiation, alteration of diet or environment, interviews, surveys, simple observation, administration of questionnaires, or review of records.

Note that research is systematic, and thus the writing up of a single case report would typically not be considered "research." On the other hand, some quality improvement and quality assurance activities are systematic, but are not designed to contribute to generalizable knowledge (that is, those overseeing the project are not planning to share results outside this institution or results are not generalizable to larger group). These quality assurance activities would therefore not be research and would not require review by the IRB.

Please see the following topics in this section for further information.


back to top back to top


What is a human subject?
Human Subject  is defined as “a living individual about whom an investigator (whether professional or student) conducting research obtains (1) data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) identifiable private information” (45CFR46.102(f)).

Interventions may be physical procedures by which data are gathered or manipulations of the subject or the subject's environment that are performed for research purposes. Obtaining identifiable private information may include a review of medical records or collection of data from surveys or from existing databases. 45 CFR 46 clarifies that “private information” includes “information about behavior that occurs in a context in which an individual can reasonably expect that no observation or recording is taking place” and information “which the individual can reasonably expect will not be made public (for example, a medical record).”

If an investigator obtains data about a living individual in such a way that she or he has no identifiable private information about the subject, then the project is not considered to involve human subjects. In this case, the data must be coded or anonymous, and the investigator conducting the research, as well as the entire research team, must have no access to any code which links the information or material used in the research back to specific individuals.

If investigators have created the code between identifiable information and study data or will have access to the code, the project may qualify for an exemption from IRB review. However, it is still considered human subjects research and some type of submission to the IRB is necessary in this case.

back to top back to top


What about deceased individuals?
The regulations for the protection of human subjects in research at 45 CFR 46 do not apply to research on deceased individuals. Similarly, BSD/UCMC policies typically do not apply to research on deceased individuals. However, while most regulations concerning humans in research refer to “living” individuals, the HIPAA regulations at 45 CFR 164 apply to all persons, whether living or no longer living. As a result, activities that may not be subject to full IRB review because all subjects are deceased may still require a minimal submission process to the IRB office because HIPAA regulations still apply. The IRB at the University of Chicago is designated to perform this HIPAA-related function.

Investigators pursuing a research project involving solely deceased individuals should fill out a request on the Forms and Guidelines page for  “Request for Research on Decedents.”

 

back to top back to top


How do I get more information about upcoming IRB deadlines or events?
The Office of Clinical Research maintains an email mailing list for IRB contacts through University IT Services. This mailing list will allow researchers and support staff to receive information on upcoming IRB training and meeting dates. Researchers and supprot staff will also be updated on new or revised policies, forms, or procedures for submitting to the IRB through this mailing list. 

As you sign up for the list yourself, you have the freedom to remove yourself from this list at any time.

To sign up for the list, please go to this website:
https://lists.uchicago.edu/web/info/irbcontacts

Once you sign up at this website, you will receive an email to confirm your subscription.

 

Where can I get more information?
If you have a specific question about a submission in process, please contact the person listed as the "IRB Administrator" on the workspace for that submission in AURA. Contact information for IRB administrators can be found here: http://bsdirb.bsd.uchicago.edu/contact_us.html

If you have a general question or are unsure whom to contact, you can contact the IRB administrator on call for the day according to the monthly schedule posted at the above address. (Click on the link to "On Call Schedule" for that month)

The BSD/UCMC IRB office has also established a general email address to which questions or comments may be sent by the research community. The email address is: bsdirb@bsd.uchicago.edu

Emails sent to this address will be answered within 1-3 business days. If you have a general question about IRB policies, questions about a planned IRB submission, or a question about other IRB-related issues, please consider contacting this email address. If you do not know the specific IRB administrator to contact about a particular submission, you can also use this address and your email will be directed to the appropriate person to respond.

If you have a question about IRB Reliance Agreements and/or single IRB of record, please email IRBReliance@bsd.uchicago.edu

 


back to top back to top

Training

Does the IRB require training for investigators?
The BSD requires training for all researchers per policy “Faculty and Staff Training Requirements for the Conduct of Clinical Research.” Training is required every 3 years. Please see the "Training" page for more information (http://bsdirb.bsd.uchicago.edu/training.html )

The IRB suggests the CITI website (www.citiprogram.org) to complete this training requirement.

As of April 10, 2015, you will need to use your University CNet ID and password to log into CITI and affiliate with University of Chicago. If you do not have a CNet ID, a UCHAD ID and password may be used. If you are an incoming faculty member and do not yet have a CNet or UCHAD ID, please contact University Research Administrator for assistance in early access to University resources. If you are not affiliated with the University of Chicago as an employee or student, you will not be able to use the U of C access to CITI. In this case, other training can be obtained, including the NIH training (see link below).

Note that human subject protection training is also mandatory for research staff on any NIH-funded project. The NIH provides an on-line training program to fulfill this requirement (http://phrp.nihtraining.com/users/login.php), or you can complete the CITI online training.

back to top back to top


What about investigators working with children?
In 2006, the BSD/UCMC IRB reviewed several protocols that include healthy children as volunteers.  During the review of these protocols, it became apparent that the IRB has occasionally approved research projects falling within a special category of research that requires additional review by the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) before subjects may be enrolled (known as Subpart D under 45 CFR 46). In response to this finding, the IRB halted enrollment onto these studies.  Official notification of this noncompliance issue was sent to the Office of Human Research Protections. In addition, the following corrective action plans have been implemented.

Corrective Actions and Required Training:
The BSD/UCMC IRB implemented submission questions that are mandatory for all protocols involving children. These questions should be completed when adding children as a study population. In addition, the IRB staff and committee members have been trained regarding the regulations governing research with children.
   
The University and the IRB have also determined that training is necessary for all investigators who conduct research with pediatric populations.  A training module on vulnerable populations, including a module on research with minor subjects, is included in the training to be completed online through the CITI website referenced above.

Effective September 1, 2005, all faculty listed on protocols that include pediatric populations must have completed the pediatric research training. 
In addition, new faculty should complete the pediatric training prior to the approval of any research protocols involving children. We also strongly recommend that all staff involved in research protocols that enroll children receive training on this topic. A module on research with children is now required as part of the initial BSD requirements in the CITI program.


back to top back to top


My research group would like to attend a training presentation on a specific topic. Whom should we contact?
The IRB has "Brown Bag" training sessions available which are designed to provide researchers with guidance on IRB processes and provide an opportunity to have specific questions answered. We also hope to develop a stronger interactive relationship between the IRB staff and researchers. Research groups are encouraged to attend these sessions. Please see the training page for more information about these sessions.

In addition, researchers with specific training topics in mind may contact James Lynch, Associate Director of Education/Quality Assurance for Human Subjects in the Office of Clinical Research, to determine if applicable training might already be scheduled or planned or if such a session could be provided. He can be reached at 773-834-1613 or via email to jlynch@bsd.uchicago.edu.

The OCR hosts monthly workshops during the academic year on a variety of research topics. If you are interested in a topic that could be of value to the larger research community, suggestions for workshop sessions are welcomed. Please contact Margaret Wieczorek at 773-834-2860 or via email at mwieczor@bsd.uchicago.edu with suggestions for topics and/or presenters.

back to top back to top

 

Submitting New Proposals

How do I submit to the IRB?
All submissions should be routed using the University-wide IRB system, AURA. Please log in to the IRB module in AURA through the AURA website, http://aura.uchicago.edu

Please see the AURA-IRB page for more information and specific FAQs related to the AURA system.

Is my project subject to review by the IRB?
IRBs review research that involves human subjects. The types of research that are covered include clinical trials, behavioral research, epidemiological and survey research, outcomes research, anthropological research, educational research, field and international research, oral histories, and psychological research. Research can range from a clinical trial to the use of human cell lines. In addition, quality assurance activities may or may not also be considered to be research activities. 

How the results will be used affects whether or not a project is research. If there is any intent to publish or otherwise make known the results, the project likely should be submitted to the IRB. For example, if the project is being undertaken with the notion that a paper or journal article may be published, or that a poster or paper may be presented at a conference or community gathering, the project most likely will qualify as research and thus is subject to review by the Institutional Review Board.

If you are unsure about your project, please check with the IRB staff to help you determine if it is “research” involving “human subjects” as defined by the institution and federal regulations.


back to top back to top


When is research involving human subjects not subject to review by the IRB?
Certain types of human subjects research may qualify as exempt from IRB review. In order to be exempt, research must meet specific, federally-designed criteria, including that the research involve only minimal risk to human subjects. Exempt research under the purview of the BSD IRB cannot involve either sensitive data (data linked to specific individuals that may be painful or embarrassing to reveal) or certain special populations (such as prisoners). Research involving children may be exempted under certain circumstances.

Per University policy, the IRB must make the final determination regarding exemption. Investigators should not begin any human subjects research until the IRB has determined that it is (1) approved or (2) exempt from IRB review.

In addition, if you have received approval from a non-University of Chicago IRB, please contact the U of C IRB office to determine approval procedures at our site.


back to top back to top


What is minimal risk?
Minimal risk is defined in the federal regulations as situations wherein “the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests” (45CFR46.102(i)).


back to top back to top


I believe my study is exempt from IRB review. Can I go ahead?
The IRB must make the final determination regarding exemption status. Never commence any study procedures until receiving notification of exemption or approval from the IRB. Investigators should submit an exemption request through AURA with enough detail to determine whether the protocol meets exemption requirements. You should be notified within a week of the status of your exemption.

If you make changes to an existing study that has previously been determined to be exempt, a new request for exemption should be submitted, as research actvities may have changed such that the exempt requirements are no longer met.

Please contact the IRB staff for further information regarding specific studies that may be exempt from IRB review.

In addition, if you have received approval or exemption from a non-University of Chicago IRB, please contact the U of C IRB office to determine approval or exemption procedures at our site.


 back to top back to top


I'd like to publish a case report. Do I need to submit anything to the IRB?
Federal regulations define research as “a systematic investigation … designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” Research is usually designed with the intent to publish the results of a research hypothesis being tested.

However, physicians at the University of Chicago Medical Center occasionally come across a patient who presents with a unique condition or whose stay at the hospital presents an interesting discrepancy from the normal course of treatment or reaction to treatment. In these instances, a physician may wish to publish a case report on this one patient in order to contribute to medical knowledge. 

Although this case reporting does involve the intent to publish results, it does not involve the intent to ask or answer a specific research question. Consequently, the wish to publish a single case report is not considered to be research and the IRB does not require the submission of a protocol in order to publish the case report.

If more than one case occurs of the specific condition or medical anomaly, or the investigators begin to formulate a hypothesis or attempt to gather further information on cases of this type with the intent to publish, activities cross into what could be considered “research” and it becomes necessary to submit a research proposal to the IRB.

Although publishing a case report may not require submission to the IRB, investigators should be aware of the use of individually identifiable health information in their publications. Under HIPAA, the disclosure of an individual’s protected health information must be authorized by that individual. In other words, if a case report contains any identifiers as defined by the HIPAA regulations, authorization to disclose this information in a publication should be sought from the individual whose information is being disclosed. The subject or a designated representative should sign a consent form (HIPAA authorization) to disclose this information.

It should be noted that case reports often involve reporting on a rare disorder, condition, or course of treatment. In such cases, individuals may be more easily identified as being the subject of a publication than individuals with a more common disease or condition. Consequently, this rare disorder may fall under the category of “any other unique identifying characteristic” under the HIPAA regulations, and thus be considered Protected Health Information. Physicians and other researchers should then obtain a subject’s authorization before publishing a report, even when no other identifiers are being disclosed, because the subject may be able to be identified by their disorder. 

When deciding whether or not to submit a proposal to the IRB, it is important to consider the intent of the potential publication. Medical or educational activities are not considered to be research. However, once medical activities become methodical evaluation, “designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge,” this is research as defined by the federal regulations.  


back to top back to top


I'm planning a chart review. What do I need to do?

Chart reviews are a common method of gathering information on a specific medical condition or set of patient characteristics. Although chart reviews do not involve direct interaction with subjects, chart reviews fall under IRB review because they involve obtaining private information about human subjects. Federal regulations define a human subject as “a living individual about whom an investigator … conducting research obtains (1) Data through intervention or interaction with the individual, or (2) Identifiable private information.” [45 CFR 46.102(f)]

When submitting a chart review proposal to the IRB, a protocol narrative is needed. This narrative may be brief, but should include a defined purpose for the data collection. The narrative must also include the beginning and end dates of collection. For example, if you plan to review the medical record of every asthma patient seen in clinic in 2017, you should state exactly what information you are obtaining about the patients, explain the data you hope to find, and specify the beginning and end dates of data collection. These dates are the dates during which the data were originally recorded, such as “January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017.”

Chart reviews may be prospective or retrospective, or a combination of the two. To qualify as retrospective, all information must be collected from a time period prior to the date the study is reviewed. Thus, if you expect IRB review on March 17, 2017, the endpoint of data collection must be on or before March 16, 2017 in order to be considered "retrospective." Investigators are advised to provide justification for a waiver of consent for the retrospective review of medical records. Note that the decision to grant a waiver of consent is the IRB Committee’s; in certain cases, the Committee may require that an attempt be made to obtain written consent from potential subjects, even if the information was previously collected in the chart and no prospective collection is anticipated.

In general, prospective collection of information from medical records will require written consent/authorization. Ethical guidelines indicate that if it is possible to obtain consent from potential subjects, the attempt should be made to do so. The IRB Committee will usually require that a written consent/authorization form be prepared to prospectively collect data from medical records. This includes outcomes data that has not yet occurred (e.g. you want to record 1 year follow up data on a surgery that occurred yesterday).

The Committee is also mindful of “protocol creep.” In other words, amending the protocol in the future to include information that would be retrospective then but is prospective now is not generally allowed. For example, your original protocol is approved in March 2006 to examine information from March 2005 to February 2006. Eventually, you will also want to examine the charts from March 2006 to February 2007. Rather than submit an amendment in a year, if you know now that you will want the 2006-2007 data, this request should be included in your current proposal. 

Continuing reviews: Remember, since you are obtaining private information, you are considered to be studying human subjects. Consequently, when the IRB asks for the number of subjects you have "enrolled" in the past year, they are asking for the number of charts of individual subjects that you have studied.

CRDW: Use of data from the CRDW may or may not require IRB review. If data are provided in a de-identified format, and the research team will not be accessing medical records for additional information, the research may not require IRB review. However, if the research team will receive ANY identifying information from the CRDW and/or will access medical records directly to supplement CRDW data, then IRB review will likely be needed.


back to top back to top


My study involves cancer patients. Is there anything special I need to submit?
Most studies involving cancer patients or their data must be reviewed by the Clinical Trials Review Committee (CTRC). Please note that protocols must be reviewed by the CTRC before they are reviewed by the IRB. For more information on the CTRC submission process or to find out if your protocol requires CTRC review, please contact Amber Burnett in the Cancer Research Center at 4-0357 or aburnett@medicine.bsd.uchicago.edu.


back to top back to top


My study involves nursing staff. Is there anything special I need to submit?
Nurse investigators wishing to implement clinical research involving nursing staff and/or nursing care are required to obtain approval from the Nursing Research Committee (NRC) as well as from the IRB before proceeding with their study. Nurses who are hired to do research and collect data for physicians' research or those hired as Clinical Research Associates are not required to submit proposals to the NRC. Nurses who are doing research independent of this are required to submit their proposal to the NRC. NRC approval must be obtained prior to submitting a proposal to the IRB, and a copy of the NRC approval should accompany the IRB submission.

For more information on the NRC submission process or to find out if your protocol requires NRC review, please contact Dr. Cynthia LaFond, Nurse Educator, in the University of Chicago Medical Center at 4-9184.

 

I would like to pay or otherwise compensate my subjects. Is there a policy regarding payment?

The University has recently updated its policy on payments to research subjects. This includes clarification on when gift cards rather than checks may be used as payment.

See University policy at
http://finserv.uchicago.edu/payroll/independent/subjects.shtml

Highlights:

  • Payments to subjects over $100 per occurrence must be paid directly to the individual via University check. Gift cards, gift certificates or in-kind payments over $100 per occurrence are not permitted as remuneration for participation in a research study.
  • Payments $100 and under per occurrence can be processed via University check or other methods including petty cash, gift cards or in-kind payments.
  • Reimbursement for parking, meals, and/or transportation to and from study visits are not taxable. Reimbursement may be made only if a receipt for the expense is provided by the subject. Reimbursements for subjects’ time are taxable.

Note, if subjects will be entered in a raffle/drawing to win a gift with value of at least $100, the researchers need to record the name of the individual receiving the gift.

If total amount of payment may exceed $600, the University will need to issue a W9, and therefore name and social security number will need to be collected. If total amount is expected to be less than $600, researchers should maintain a log of payments, including name of payee.

Questions? Contact University of Chicago Financial Services Office.
Questions about petty cash? Contact cash-management@cticket.uchicago.edu.

Please describe any planned payment/compensation for research subjects in the AURA IRB submission form.

back to top back to top


When the IRB asks for number of subjects to be enrolled, what does this mean? What if I need to enroll more subjects?
In order to clarify the discrepancies in reporting numbers of subjects enrolled, consider the question of “how many subjects are to be enrolled onto this study” as two questions, as follows.

1. How many evaluable subjects will be enrolled?

2. How many persons will be taken through the consent process, or otherwise identified as potential subjects, in order to achieve the desired number of evaluable subjects?

The first number is also known as the "target enrollment" or "goal."


For clinical trials, the first number indicates the number of subjects who will undergo the procedures of the protocol. The second number represents the number of potential subjects who might be consented in order to take them through screening procedures meant to determine if they can undergo the entire study. When a sponsor asks that a site enroll 10 subjects, this is the evaluable number (the first number). The number of subjects taken through the consent process (the second number) will be at least that many and almost necessarily be larger, since it is probable that some potential subjects may not meet all study requirements or may be unable to undergo study procedures. If the PI finds that there have been many screen failures and dropouts on a particular study, the second number may need to be increased in order to obtain the original target number of evaluable subjects.

For studies that are not clinical trials, such as chart reviews, the number to be evaluated will often be the same as the number to be identified for participation, since there are unlikely to be drop outs or screen failures. For survey studies, the number to be contacted or approached will likely be more than the number that are expected to participate. For example, 500 surveys might be sent out in order to generate 250 responses (the desired number of responses being 250; 250 is the “evaluable” number).

During the initial submission, the IRB currently asks that the evaluable number be provided, keeping in mind that subjects who complete some research interventions are considered by the IRB to be "evaluable."

During continuing review, investigators are asked to provide the number of subjects enrolled and the number taken through the consent process (or otherwise identified as possible participants) to date.

If the number of subjects listed in the grant or approved by the sponsor to enroll at this site is increased, this is likely an increase to the number of subjects expected to complete the entire study (evaluable subjects). This change will require an amendment submission and likely a consent form revision as well.

The number of subjects stated in the consent form under “How Many People Will Take Part in the Study” should be the number expected to complete the entire study or a significant portion of the study (evaluable subjects) at this site. If this number changes with an amendment, a revised consent form will be necessary in order to revise this number to reflect the new recruitment goal.


back to top back to top

Why does the IRB ask so many questions during initial review of a protocol?

The IRB is charged with the protection of human subjects in research. In order to fulfill that responsibility, the IRB must ensure that research studies comply with applicable federal, state, local, and institutional regulations and policies, as well as with the IRB Committee’s own ethical guidelines. At the federal level, the regulations the IRB must follow are mainly codified at 45CFR46 (DHHS), 21CFR11, 50 and 56 (FDA), and 45CFR164 (HIPAA).

The University of Chicago IRBs must abide by Illinois state laws applicable to research as well as by any city or local rules. Examples of applicable state law include the IL Health Care Surrogate Act and Medical Patient Rights Act (concerning those who cannot consent for themselves), IL Genetic Information Privacy Act, and IL AIDS Confidentiality Act. Examples of city or other local regulations include the requirements for approval or acknowledgement of research when conducting research at specific sites, such as those required from the Friend Family Health Center and the Chicago Public Schools.

These federal, state, and other requirements are addressed by the IRB mainly through the protocol submission form. Many of the submission form questions employ language taken directly from the federal regulations. Other questions address University of Chicago/Biological Sciences Division/UCMC requirements.  One example of an institutional requirement is the need for CTRC review of any study involving cancer patients. At the U of C, there is also a UCMC requirement that the treating physician to be consulted prior to approaching a patient for participation in a research study. 

Thus it is to your advantage to fill out these forms as completely as possible when submitting to the IRB, as additional information may be requested if there is insufficient justification or description provided for the IRB to make a required finding.

Example:

Per 45CFR46.111(a)(4), in order to approve research the IRB must determine that “informed consent will be sought from each prospective subject or the subject’s legally authorized representative, in accordance with, and to the extent required by 45CFR46.116.” At 45CFR46.116, the requirements for informed consent are detailed, including the requirement that consent be sought “only under circumstances that provide the prospective subject or the representative sufficient opportunity to consider whether or not to participate and that minimize the possibility of coercion or undue influence.”

These sections give rise to the following questions on the protocol submission form:

- Recruitment section, e.g. “Please specify who will make initial contact with the potential subject”
- Consent process section, e.g. “How will informed consent be obtained,” “Please describe procedures to obtain consent,” and “How will you determine whether the subject understands the study”

Accordingly, the above questions should be answered in sufficient detail to ensure that the IRB can determine that the requirement at 45CFR46.111(a)(4) is met.

A copy of the consent form template has been prepared and labeled with specific references to the applicable regulations or policies which influenced each template section/statement.

Consent form (notated)

back to top back to top


How long will it take for my new protocol submission to be approved? What happens between submission and approval?
The IRB office has two deadlines per month for the submission of new protocols. Studies submitted prior to a deadline date will generally be held until the deadline and all submissions for that period are processed at once. If you have submitted a protocol for expedited review, be advised that it may not be reviewed until after the deadline. Deadlines occur approximately one month before the scheduled meeting at which the submission may be reviewed.

After a study is submitted, the IRB administrators conduct a pre-review before sending it to the IRB Committee for review. This pre-review usually occurs within one week following the deadline, depending on volume of submissions and other factors. Often, this pre-review will result in a request for additional information or documentation. Certain documents are required before the Committee can review a protocol and the IRB administrators will inform you as soon as possible if your submission is missing any such required elements. The submission will not be reviewed by the Committee until all required elements are received, regardless of the date of the original submission.  If you do not wish to respond to certain comments, or if you would like to provide an alternative response, please document this when submitting back to the IRB so that the IRB is aware of any issues that should be considered during its review.

Administrators will also make other suggestions for revisions. While you are not required to submit these other revisions prior to the Committee meeting, it has been the IRB’s experience that Committee members generally incorporate administrator suggestions into their own review by including these suggestions in the pending conditions for study approval. For this reason, we recommend responding to pre-review comments prior to the IRB meeting in order to reduce the time necessary for review and approval of your study.

If, at the meeting, the Committee feels that further information or documentation is needed before approval can be granted, the protocol will be given “deferred” or “pending-conditional” status.  The Principal Investigator will receive a letter detailing the outstanding issues after the meeting, usually within the following one to two weeks. If a protocol is deferred, it must be reviewed again at a scheduled meeting. Additional information may still be required after the second meeting, and a second deferral or a pending-conditional letter may be sent. Pending-conditional studies can be approved without returning to a meeting once all pending issues have been appropriately addressed, although the Committee may review a pending-conditional response at another meeting at its discretion. 

Generally, non-expeditable studies require at least one month from day of submission to approval. Two months is the average timespan from submission to approval. If a study is deferred, or pending comments are not adequately addressed, approval can take several months or more. Studies that can be expedited generally require about 2-3 weeks.


back to top back to top

I submitted a protocol for expedited review. Why haven’t I received an approval letter yet?
Deadlines are the same for full review and expedited protocols. If you have submitted a protocol for expedited review, be advised that it may not be reviewed until after the next deadline date, regardless of the day it was submitted. During a pre-review, the IRB administrators and IRB reviewer will determine if they believe your study can be expedited. Many studies are not granted expedited review even when it is requested. The IRB, not the investigator, has the final decision on whether a study can be expedited.

In addition, expedited review is determined not by a need for quick approval but rather by the minimal level of risk. Only studies of minimal risk falling into one of the federally-defined, IRB-approved categories are eligible to be expedited. 

The following may be a reason why you have not received approval:

* the deadline has not yet passed. Your submission has not yet been reviewed.

* your study is not eligible for expedited review. The IRB staff will notify you at the time of pre-review if this is the case.

* the IRB staff or chair has requested further information, which has not yet been received. Check with other members of the study team to see if they are working on a response.

The IRB staff makes every effort to expedite qualifying protocols as quickly as possible. However, due to the large volume of protocols, we are not always able to immediately process expedites. If you submit a study you believe qualifies for expedited review, and you do not hear anything after two weeks, please contact one of the IRB administrators to check on the status of your protocol.

back to top

My protocol is not funded by a grant or contract, but there is no option for “Not Applicable” under “Funding” on the protocol submission form. How do I indicate “N/A”?
Protocols without an external funding source are considered to be “internally funded.” While internal funds may consist of a departmental award or private funding, the term “internally funded” also refers to the University’s compensation for the researcher’s time spent performing the research. Since salaries are paid by the University, any time spent on research that does not have an external funding source is paid for by the University. Therefore, for studies without any external funding, investigators should check “internal funding” on the submission form. 


back to top back to top


My protocol is funded by a grant at another institution. What do I check on the submission form under “Funding”? What documentation should I submit to the IRB?
If your protocol will be funded by a grant awarded to another university, in many cases some portion of the funds from that grant will be awarded to the University of Chicago as a subaward. If the grant at the other site is providing any funds to our site in a subaward, researchers should submit a copy of the final subaward application to the IRB and indicate that the project is funded by a grant to another institution on the External Funding page of the submission. A copy of the IRB approval letter from the other institution should be uploaded to the submission.

If the University of Chicago is not receiving any funds from a grant that has been awarded to another site, the project is considered to be “internally funded.” No additional documentation is required for “internally funded” protocols.


back to top back to top


My grant has been submitted to the funding agency, but an award determination has not yet been made. How do I clarify this on the protocol submission form? Does the IRB still require a copy of my grant?
If the grant for which you have applied has not been awarded and you are not certain it will be awarded, the IRB submission is considered to be “internally funded” until such time as a grant is awarded. The procedures for internally funded projects should be followed. If your protocol has previously been approved with internal funding and you have now been awarded a grant that will be funding the project, a complete copy of the final version of the grant should be submitted to the IRB as an amendment to the protocol approximately 4 to 6 weeks prior to an anticipated award.

Pending grants are not required to be submitted to the IRB. However, if you have received a  favorable score or other indicator that your research is likely to be funded, the grant should be submitted to the IRB at that time and details regarding the external funding should be included on the submission form in the "Funding" section.  By submitting your grant for certification prior to “Just-In-Time” or award acceptance, you may avoid delays or restrictions on your award. Again, this only applies to grants that are likely to be funded.


back to top back to top


The project described in my funded grant has been approved by the IRB. Can I just list the IRB protocol number for that project in my grant?
Federal regulations and University of Chicago policy require that grants be “certified,” that is, that they be reviewed and approved by the IRB. Any grant involving human subjects must be submitted to the IRB for approval, either with the original submission of the protocol or with an amendment to an approved protocol. The IRB will review the grant and determine whether the study or studies outlined in the grant appear to match the study procedures outlined on the IRB protocol.  If the procedures match, the grant can be approved as funding that protocol.


back to top back to top


I am submitting a grant for approval by the IRB. How much of the grant is needed? Can I just submit the science portion?
In order to certify a grant, a complete copy of the final version of the grant should be submitted to the IRB. PIs may remove the specific budget amounts, if they choose, but all other portions of the grant should be submitted, including the face page.

Researchers should indicate the AURA FP# (previously, the TRACS ID number), which is an internal University of Chicago identifier used for tracking purposes, on the AURA IRB submission and upload the corresponding documentation either where requested in the submission form or in the "Upload Grant Application" activity on the AURA workspace.


back to top back to top

Continuing Review and Amendments


I just had an amendment approved. Do I still need to submit a continuing review for that study?
Yes. Amendments deal with changes to the approved study. Approval of an amendment indicates specific approval of that change. Once approved, an amendment becomes a part of the approved study. On the other hand, a continuing review is a review of the entire study, including all amendments up to that date, to evaluate whether the study continues to meet all requirements for approval.

back to top back to top


Can I submit a continuing review and an amendment at the same time?
You can, although the submission of overlapping documents for both can be tricky. Remember that the continuing review is a review of the approved study and your submitted amendment has not yet been approved or may never be approved. If an amendment is approved after you have submitted your continuing review documents but before renewal approval, you may need to update your continuing review submission to reflect any changes made with the amendment. Conversely, if your consent form is revised during the time of continuing review, you may need to submit a revised consent form for any pending amendment to incorporate renewal changes with amendment changes to the consent form. 

Especially with consent forms, be aware of whichever version is approved last. It becomes the approved version. Amendment changes are nullified if the renewal consent form, approved after the amendment, does not reflect the amendment changes. Another amendment must then be submitted to approve the revised consent form before it can be used.


back to top back to top


In what circumstances do I submit an amendment?
Any change to an approved study, including changes to the consent form, advertisement, recruitment procedures, study personnel, or protocol design, should be submitted as an amendment to the protocol. Minor changes can be approved through expedited procedures, but still must be submitted for approval. All requested changes should be described in detail on the amendment submission form, which must be electronically signed by the PI and submitted along with any documents that are being changed.

No change should be implemented until it is approved by the IRB.
Amendments cannot be processed on protocols that have not yet been approved. Changes to protocols that have not yet been approved should be addressed through memos or responses to the IRB Committee.

Study activities should NOT deviate in any way from the protocol that is approved by the IRB unless a change is  necessary to eliminate immediate hazard to an individual. The investigator should notify the IRB as soon as possible after a change is made to eliminate hazard(s) to subjects or others, and a formal amendment should follow within 5 working days of implementation of the change.


back to top back to top

How do I enroll an otherwise ineligible subject on a study?
How can I slightly alter approved study procedures for one subject?

The BSD/UCMC IRB does not have a protocol “exception” policy. Accordingly, when any revision to an approved research protocol is desired, including a change in research design or eligibility criteria, for one subject or multiple subjects, the investigator must submit an amendment. The amendment form should explain what changes are desired and provide a rationale for those changes. A revised copy of the pertinent original documents (e.g. protocol, consent form, etc.) should also be submitted with the changes identified.

Amendments to approved protocols may not be initiated until IRB approval has been obtained, except where necessary to eliminate apparent immediate hazards to the subject, in which case the IRB should be notified as soon as possible. Eliminating immediate hazards to a subject should be considered in the light of treatment rather than research. If it is in the best interests of the patient/subject to be given or removed from study drug/procedures, then this should be done regardless of the approved protocol or the need for an amendment. The appropriate paperwork may be completed later.

In other words, treatment decisions should be made separately from research decisions. An investigator/ physician may believe that the best treatment for a patient is an experimental drug. However, as an investigator, that same physician should note that if a treatment decision for a particular patient does not fit within or differs from approved research procedures, the patient may not be able to remain on or be enrolled in the research.

The IRB is often informed that “treatment” may be delayed if an amendment is not approved immediately. In practice, treatment decisions must be made by the treating physician regardless of a research opportunity. Participation on a research study is often not a patient’s only treatment option. Alternative approved drugs/procedures or other drugs given off label may represent other treatment options for a potential patient for a study or a subject already enrolled on a study.

When a PI makes a decision as to whether to treat a person and/or to keep that person on a research study, there may be other entities involved in the decision regarding this person, including the study sponsor and IRB. A sponsor may or may not allow the patient to remain on study if procedures for that patient will differ from study procedures. In addition, this event would require reporting to the IRB as an unanticipated problem if the PI has not requested prior approval for the change to approved study procedures. The IRB may then determine that using data from that patient/subject is not appropriate on the study. Again, this does not affect the treatment decision; it only affects the research.

An IRB is required by federal regulations to ensure prompt reporting of serious or continuing noncompliance with regulations or noncompliance with the IRB’s own requirements/ determinations. Deviations from the approved protocol, i.e., changes made without prior IRB approval, fall under the category of noncompliance. Deviations must be reported to the IRB. Once reported, the IRB can make a decision regarding appropriate response or remedial action, or determine that no remedial action is necessary. Remedial actions may include asking an investigator to exclude data that was obtained inappropriately or outside approved study parameters.

A protocol deviation occurs when the study departs from the IRB-approved protocol in any way, including use of a non-approved or outdated document (consent, advertisement, etc.), change in procedures (drug dosing, scheduling of study visits, re-ordering of study activities), change in personnel conducting study procedures, and inclusion of a subject not meeting eligibility criteria.

It is the expectation of the IRB that all approved protocol procedures are being followed without alteration unless the IRB has been informed of a protocol change (through an amendment) or deviation (through an Unanticipated Problem report or continuing review update).

Example #1:
Patient A was screened for a research study. All the necessary screening labs were done as well as a medical history review. Inclusion/exclusion criteria were verified by the PI and the patient was found to be eligible and started on study. Later, it was discovered that Patient A had a condition diagnosed at an outside facility that was not recorded in the medical history. This condition is among the protocol exclusion criteria. The study physician would like to keep Patient A on study.

Potential issues arising from this example:
1) If this is a sponsored study, the sponsor should be informed that a subject was enrolled who was ineligible. The sponsor must decide whether this person may continue on study.
2) If there are immediate health or safety issues that would require that this person remain on study (e.g drug is only available as part of the research and there may be consequences to abrupt withdrawal of drug, etc.), then to protect the safety of the subject that person should remain on study drug, if possible. This should be documented in the research file, the medical chart, and in an unanticipated problem report.
3) An unanticipated problem should be reported in any case as soon as possible. The IRB will consider whether to protect human subject(s), this subject should continue to be on study or whether he or she should be taken off study, if the subject has not already been removed from the study.

Example #2:
Patient A is an otherwise-eligible 70 year old. The protocol inclusion criteria for this drug trial states that persons ages 18-69 may be enrolled. The study physician feels that Patient A may benefit from the drug and would like to enroll her on the study. Patient A is coming to the hospital for a clinical care visit tomorrow. The PI wants to approach Patient A to participate in the study at that visit.

Potential issues arising from this example:
1)If this is a sponsored study, the sponsor should be queried as to whether an exception to eligibility criteria would be allowed. The sponsor must decide whether this person may be enrolled on study and if allowed, should provide documentation to the PI to that effect.
2) As this is a change to the approved research design, IRB approval should be requested prior to enrollment of this individual. As noted above, approval is needed whether this change applies only to this one individual or whether eligibility criteria are expanded for all future potential subjects.
3) It is unlikely that the IRB will be able to approve an amendment prior to the scheduled clinical care visit. The PI may wish to reschedule or explore other appointment options or opportunities with this patient.

back to top back to top

I have a patient waiting to be enrolled, but I recently submitted an amendment to change the consent form. Can the IRB process that amendment quickly so that I can enroll this patient?

The IRB receives multiple requests for amendments to be processed more quickly due to patients waiting. Note that due to the volume of amendments requiring processing and the limited availability of IRB reviewers, the IRB cannot accommodate all requests for quicker processing. Note, too, that if an amendment qualifies for expedited review the IRB will likely expedite it regardless of whether or not expedited review was requested. If it does not qualify for expedited review, it will require review at the nearest convened meeting for which a reviewer is able to review it. If possible and upon request, the IRB may be able to review the amendment at an earlier meeting than the one for which deadline it was submitted. Please contact the IRB office for such a request. Please copy the PI on all such requests.

If a proposed change involves re-consenting of all subjects, it is unlikely that the amendment will receive expedited review.

If you have an IRB-approved consent form and enrollment has not been halted for safety or other concerns, you are free to enroll subjects using that approved consent form. If, however, in the PI’s opinion a change described in an upcoming amendment is a change that potential subjects should be aware of due to safety or other concerns that might affect a subject’s willingness to participate, the subject should not be enrolled until he/she can be informed appropriately and with an approved consent form that adequately reflects approved study procedures.

back to top back to top


My study was finally approved 5 months ago. Why is the IRB already sending me reminder notices about renewing the study?
Federal regulations require that studies be reviewed by the IRB at least once every year. This means that the IRB has one year from the date a protocol is reviewed at a convened meeting, or in the case of expedited reviews, the day the expedited approval is reviewed and approved, to review the study again, either at a convened meeting or through expedited review procedures.

If your protocol was last reviewed at a meeting in March, but did not get final approval until September, it must still be reviewed prior to one year from the day in March it was reviewed at a meeting.

Researchers should check the IRB website for renewal deadlines posted on the Meeting Dates page.

Note that for studies that cannot be expedited, it is imperative to meet renewal deadlines, as renewal forms must be reviewed at a convened meeting. If there is no meeting scheduled before your study’s expiration date, it will expire. 

The AURA-IRB system sends out renewal reminders approximately 3 months before studies expire. These are sent to the email address on the "Profile" page for the PI and primary contact. Posted deadlines on the IRB website give a deadline for 2 months before the expiration date in order to review the studies at the meeting 1 month before the expiration. If any problems arise during the review or revised documents are requested, the PI thus has time to respond before the protocol’s expiration date. Note that the IRB makes every effort to notify investigators prior to study expiration regarding the need for renewal; however, the principal investigator is ultimately responsible for ensuring a protocol's continued approval.


back to top back to top


My study is closed to enrollment. Do I still have to renew it?
If any study procedures are ongoing, the study should be renewed. This includes studies with subjects still on study drug(s), undergoing study procedures, or being followed, or studies for which data is still being collected or analyzed. Even if the subject’s own involvement in the study is finished, if you are still working with identifiable subject data IRB approval is needed. You should submit continuing review documents at the appropriate time.

If all study-related procedures are complete, and you are not planning to do any further data analysis, then the study can be terminated. If data analysis will be done at another site, and this site has completed all study procedures, the study can be terminated at this site, unless you feel that the sponsor may request additional data from your site. If you still need to look at subjects’ medical records for information to report to the sponsor, you will need to keep the study active. 

back to top

 

Why do I have to do a literature search?
Ideally, a PI should always be well informed of the literature relating to his/her particular field of study and should be conducting reviews of the available literature on a regular basis. The need for a literature search to assess the risk level and alternatives to participation of each study was given additional emphasis following the federally-imposed halt on research at Johns Hopkins University in 2001. A volunteer on a Hopkins research study died after being exposed to a drug for which the government determined that risk information had not been adequately researched. 

Consequently, the federal agencies governing research have heightened their emphasis on the need for a thorough review of available applicable literature both before research is started and as an ongoing process throughout the research. The University of Chicago BSD IRB therefore requires that a literature search be conducted and the results presented to the IRB at the time of original submission as well as at each continuing review (renewal).  During the original submission, references in a written protocol may suffice in lieu of a literature search.


back to top back to top


How should I conduct the literature search? What does the IRB require?
PIs should search on one or more web-based search engines for articles relating to 1) the condition being studied and 2) the specific drug/device/process being studied. For example, for studies of a new drug for IBD, PIs should not only search for articles on the risk of that drug, but should also search for articles on new treatments for IBD that would present available alternatives to study procedures. The Committee is also concerned with the applicability of the proposed research; that is, if a literature search reveals that the study being proposed replicates studies that have already been completed with definite results, the PI should consider whether his or her study is likely to yield new information and if not, if the study should be performed. 

While the IRB has faith that investigators are responsibly conducting research, the IRB does not accept merely a statement that a literature search has been performed. The Committee requests that PIs provide the IRB with the name of the search engine that is used, the search strategy (keywords), and the results of the search, along with a description of the results’ impact on the risk level and/or alternatives to participation of the research.

Example of an acceptable literature search for a renewal: 

SEARCH ENGINE: PubMed 
SEARCH TERMS: Drug Name (generic), Drug Name (brand), Disorder Name 
RESULTS: 1200 articles. 
SUMMARY: Most of the articles were not applicable to the study at hand as they dealt with the risks of or descriptions of standard of care drugs for this disorder. Searching on the drug itself yielded only a few results having to do with animal studies; these are already covered in the investigator’s brochure. One article, “DRUG XYZ in Disease Y” by A. Jones, indicated a possible new alternative therapy, but this is still in Phase I development. Overall, there is nothing in the literature to indicate any new information on the risks or benefits of this study. Risks found in the literature are already covered in the protocol and consent form for this project.


back to top back to top


My study is closed to enrollment. Do I still need to perform a literature search? 
If your study is still enrolling subjects OR if enrollment is closed, but subjects are still actively participating in study procedures or receiving study drug, then a literature review should be submitted. 

If your study is permanently closed to enrollment and all subjects have completed all research-related interventions, then a literature review may not be required. However, the IRB does require that you provide a justification for not providing a literature search. (“Not applicable” is not considered a sufficient justification. Please explain why a search is not applicable.) Also, the IRB may determine that a literature search is needed to ensure that there is no new information that should be provided to subjects in follow up, e.g. new safety information about the drug tested in the study. Please contact the IRB staff for more guidance on your specific protocol, if needed.


back to top back to top

 

Adverse Events/Unanticipated Problems


An adverse event occurred on a different study and my sponsor is asking me to report it for my study. What do I do?
Occasionally, a sponsor will request that an external adverse event be reported for a study on which the event did not occur. For example, an adverse event of side effects from a certain drug may be reported on several studies involving that drug, even if the adverse event occurred in a subject enrolled on only one specific study. In this case, the non-study adverse event should be reported to the IRB in the same manner as other events; the investigator should determine whether the event represents an Unanticipated Problem according to the IRB definition. If the event meets the reporting requirements, it should be reported to the IRB using the “Unanticipated Problem Report” form in AURA.

If the event does not meet reporting requirements, it may be included in the summary of events reported at the time of continuing review for this study.

If the adverse event does not meet IRB reporting requirements and it is submitted to the IRB office, it may be returned to you. Please see the Policies and Procedures page for the University of Chicago unanticipated problem reporting policy.


back to top back to top

If an adverse event does not meet the IRB reporting criteria, does it need to be reported to the IRB? What if my sponsor tells me the adverse event must be reported?

If the PI determines that an adverse event (internal or external) does not meet the IRB Unanticipated Problem reporting criteria, it should not be submitted to the IRB for review as an unanticipated problem. Please note that the BSD/UCMC IRB reporting criteria may differ from sponsor or other reporting criteria. Any adverse event that does not meet the IRB reporting criteria will be returned.

All AEs that do not meet UP reporting criteria can be summarized at the time of continuing review.  Any sponsor that insists that an AE that does not meet our reporting criteria be submitted should be notified of the IRB’s Unanticipated Problem reporting policy.

UP reporting policy

back to top back to top

My sponsor wants me to submit a list of adverse events (AEs) more frequently than at the time of continuing review. Should I submit these per the sponsor request?

If the adverse event lists contain AEs that do meet the U of C Unanticipated Problem reporting criteria, these AEs should be submitted to the IRB on an individual basis as unanticipated problems. All other AEs that do not meet the IRB reporting criteria should be summarized at the time of continuing review. Any packet or list of AEs not meeting individual reporting criteria that are submitted to the IRB at a time other than during the continuing review process will be returned to the PI, as per the above.

As these AEs do not represent a change to the approved study, they should not be submitted with an amendment. An amendment is only needed if AEs require a change in the protocol (such as a consent form change) and thus an amendment would only be expected to report an AE if the AE meet the criteria for a UP report.

 

What safety events do I report at time of continuing review?

For studies involving an experimental drug, device, or other intervention, it is probable that events will have occurred on study that are expected safety events and/or events that do not suggest that the research places subjects or others at a risk of unknown harm or addition/increased frequency of harms. These are events that do not meet the criteria for reporting as an Unanticipated Problem. However, it is the expectation of the IRB that these events will be reported to the IRB; reporting of these events should be done at the time of continuing review.

With a continuing review submission, researchers are expected to report all safety events that have occurred in the prior year, regardless of whether they met the criteria for reporting as an unanticipated problem and regardless of whether a sponsor deemed the event “serious.” A summary of events should be provided on the AURA continuing review form. Detailed lists of these events can be uploaded to the continuing review form in addition to providing the summary. Researchers are expected to report both internal events that occurred with UChicago subjects and, for multisite studies, external events.

1. In response to question #4 on view 1.1 of the continuing review submission, “Have any of the following occurred during the last IRB approval Period? (Check all that apply),” researchers should select “Minor Protocol Deviation/Violation, adverse event, Safety Report, or other event that did not meet Unanticipated Problem Reporting Criteria.”  View 1.5 of the continuing review form will then be available to complete.

2. In view 1.5, question 1 asks the researcher to report any deviations that have occurred. Question 2 asks the researcher to report other events, as follows: “Other Reporting:  Please summarize other problems or safety concerns that occurred in the past year at all sites (including UChicago), including those that have not been previously reported due to not meeting reporting requirements.” The “not meeting reporting requirements” in this sentence refers to not meeting “Unanticipated Problem” reporting requirements.

Please provide a summary of all problems and safety concerns/events that have occurred at all sites since the previous continuing review, or, if this is the first continuing review submission, since the original approval of the protocol.

3. If applicable, a detailed list of events can be uploaded in view 1.8 of the continuing review form in addition to providing the summary.

 

What are a PI’s responsibilities in the event a subject discloses an intent to harm him or herself or others?

Clinical guidance suggests that should any participant indicate either verbally or in writing an intent to harm oneself or others, it is imperative for the investigator to get the person to the ER for an assessment of risk.  This can be done either voluntarily by the participant, with the investigator accompanying the participant to the ER, or better, the researchers contact Security and indicate that they need an escort to the ER for a person indicating risk.  The researchers can also page the Psychiatrist on call who will guide them in this process.

back to top back to top

 

Recruitment and Consent

I would like to recruit more subjects and want to increase the potential compensation amount for my study. Can I mention the amount that subjects will be paid in my study advertisment?
Yes, the compensation amount can be stated. However, it should not be put in large type or emphasized in any way. For more on what should and should not be included in a study advertisement, please see the IRB webpage on Advertisements.


back to top back to top


I would like to recruit subjects through a temporary employment agency. Will this be acceptable to the IRB?
Several IRBs have been asked to review protocols that propose to recruit subjects though temporary employment agencies. Per University Research Administration, this method of recruitment is inherently problematic. Temporary employment agencies are intended for employment opportunities, while participation as a human volunteer in a research project is NOT considered an employment opportunity. Employment agencies have access to disadvantaged populations, who may feel compelled to accept assignments to research projects either for the financial incentive alone or in order to maintain their relationship with a temporary employment agency to secure future placements. Thus, temporary employment agencies should not be used as a recruitment resource for research projects.


back to top back to top

Is there a consent form template?
Please see the "Forms and Guidelines" page and click on "Informed Consent Guidance."

 

My sponsor is requesting that certain language be put in the consent form regarding research-related injury. Now the IRB is asking me to remove this language. Why?
Research-related injury language is generally negotiated with the sponsor during the contract negotiations. The University of Chicago provides consent form language concerning research-related injury that is expected to be used unless the IRB is notified otherwise by the U of C contract team.

For more information, please see the IRB policy on "Statements Regarding Research-Related Injury" on the Policies and Procedures page.


back to top back to top

When is it necessary to re-consent subjects?
Over the course of conducting a research study, investigators may find that changes to the protocol are indicated, whether due to newly discovered risks, a change in protocol design, or some other factor. Whatever the change, it may require re-obtaining consent from previously consented subjects in order to continue their participation in the study.

The need to re-consent derives from the federal regulations governing research, which require that subjects be informed of significant new information that may affect their continued willingness to participate. This new information may include the following:
· increase in study length
· increased number of study visits
· a change in study venue(s)
· increased risks to subjects
· decreased benefit to subjects revealed than previously believed to be present

Therefore, investigators should evaluate the need for re-consenting previously enrolled subjects when such types of changes occur, or other changes that may affect willingness to participate.

In addition, if a study is terminated or expires while subjects are still on study, subjects will need to be informed of the study termination or expiration and study procedures must be halted. Study procedures may only continue on a terminated study if immediate withholding of study drug or procedures from subjects would affect their health or welfare. In that case, the IRB must be kept informed of subjects’ welfare and a new protocol submitted as soon as possible in order to keep subjects on study. In any case of study termination or expiration, if investigators wish to continue study procedures a new protocol and consent form will be required by the IRB. This new protocol and consent must be approved by the IRB and subjects should be re-consented using the new consent form version before they continue their participation. 

The decision to re-consent subjects on an active protocol should be made by the principal investigator during the time of amendment submission. When amending the protocol to include the new information, the investigator will be asked to provide his or her own assessment of whether re-consenting is required, and to submit a revised consent form as applicable. However, even if an investigator feels that re-consenting is not required, the IRB retains the final judgment concerning re-consenting and may request that it be done if the IRB feels that subjects’ decisions regarding participation may be affected by this new information. 

In a related situation, investigators with protocols involving the use of proxy consent may also need to obtain the consent of previously-consented subjects. In this case, if and when a subject for whom someone else has given proxy consent regains the ability to consent for his or herself, the investigator must obtain the consent of that subject directly in order for the subject to continue on the study. While not technically “re-consenting,” as the subject him or herself did not originally participate in a consent process, this circumstance does require that a subject who had previously been enrolled may only continue his or her participation after another consent process has taken place. 


back to top back to top



How do I enroll a subject who does not speak English?
A consent form translated into the potential subject's language will be needed as well as someone fluent in a language understandable to the subject to conduct the consent discussion. For more information, please see the policy on "Research Involving Non-English Speaking Subjects."

This policy can also be accessed on the "Policies and Procedures" page: http://bsdirb.bsd.uchicago.edu/policies-procedures/index.html#nonenglishsubjects

back to top back to top

 
How do I enroll a subject who does not read or write?
A person who speaks and understands English, but does not read and write, can be enrolled in a study by “making their mark” on the consent document.

If you wish to enroll a person who can understand and comprehend spoken English, but is physically unable to talk or write, or a person who cannot read the consent form for his/herself (e.g. illiterate persons), you may do so as long as the person is competent and able to indicate approval or disapproval by other means. The person must:

(1) retain the ability to understand the concepts of the study and evaluate the risk and benefit of being in the study when it is explained verbally (still competent) and

(2) be able to indicate approval or disapproval to study entry.

The consent form should document the method used for communication with the prospective subject and the specific means by which the prospective subject communicated agreement to participate in the study. An impartial third party should witness the entire consent process and sign the consent document. A video tape recording of the consent interview is recommended.

Note that for any study for which enrollment of illiterate persons is expected, this should be clearly indicated during the time of original protocol submission. If an approved study now wishes to enroll an illiterate person or persons, an amendment will need to be submitted to request approval for a change in eligibility criteria and describe the consent process for this individual or individuals and how it will differ from the approved consent process.

 
back to top back to top