IRB Process: Response to Rhonda J Paper Example

In her post, Rhonda begins with the point that it is important to edit and revise one's research proposal before submitting it for review to ensure that its information is straightforward and understandable (Musoba, Jacob, & Robinson, 2014). According to (Grady, 2015), this allows the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to understand and find value in the projects. The Veterans Administration (VA) and the University's IRB will review Rhonda's project. In the VA's IRB process, which is affiliated with Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center (DHMC) in New Hampshire, the Center's Medical Director, Dr. Todd, is the first point-of-contact. He directs researchers to the online IRB application materials and to the VA IRB checklist. The Checklist determines if projects are either a Research Study or Quality Improvement Projects (QIP). According to Rhonda's post, when the project is determined to be a research project, the IRB application goes for a full IRB review. Conversely, in the University's IRB process, Rhonda's project can undergo three forms of reviews, namely Exempt, Expedited and Full-Board Review. The type of review depends on the risk to subjects and subject population (Vitak, Proferes, Shilton, & Ashktorab, 2017). To Rhonda, both the IRB processes are similar in proof of training, electronic IRB template application, and both suggest two to the six-week turn-around on IRB determinations.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Rhonda's discussion post provides a comprehensive analysis of the IRB processes that her research project will undergo. For example, in the VA IRB's process, the reader clearly sees that the review begins with Dr. Todd who directs the researcher to the required platforms such as the online IRB application materials. In addition, Rhonda finds both IRB processes similar since they both require proof of training and electronic IRB template application, and have two to the six-week turn-around on IRB determinations. However, Rhonda needs to revise the discussion post to ensure that she does not have any incomplete sentences. For example, she has an incomplete sentence regarding the determination of the project as a quality improvement project. Overall, Rhonda's post is understandable and it answers the posed question comprehensively.

References

Grady, C. (2015). Institutional review boards: purpose and challenges. Chest, 148(5), 1148-1155. DOI:10.1378/chest.15-0706

Musoba, G. D., Jacob, S. A., & Robinson, L. J. (2014). The Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Faculty: Does the IRB Challenge Faculty Professionalism in the Social Sciences?. The Qualitative Report, 19(51), 1-14. Retrieved from https://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/ vol19/iss51/1

Vitak, J., Proferes, N., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2017). Ethics regulation in social computing research: Examining the role of Institutional Review Boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 12(5), 372-382. DOI: 10.1177/1556264617725200