Purpose: To: 1) examine participation of target groups (older women, inner city and rural women; African-American women); and 2) assess impact of the “high.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Panel: Are IRBs Efficient, Effective or Redundant? Gary L. Chadwick, PharmD, MPH, CIP Associate Provost Associate Professor, Medical Humanities University.
Advertisements

Keila E. Pena-Hernandez NAACCR 2010 Annual Conference Quebec, Canada 06/24/ 2010.
1 The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Research This presentation will probably involve audience discussion, which will create action items. Use PowerPoint to keep.
Informed consent requirements
Help Is On The Way: Computer-based Training (CBT) for Non-registry Hospitals Brenda L. Lee, CTR Missouri Cancer Registry University of Missouri-Columbia.
UTHSC IRB Donna Hollaway, RN, CCRC 11/30/2011 Authority to Audit 45 CFR (e) An IRB shall conduct continuing review of research covered by this.
Training In HIPAA Privacy Regulations for Researchers and Research Staff Adapted from a presentation prepared by Human Subjects Division, University of.
Health Insurance Portability Accountability Act of 1996 HIPAA for Researchers: IRB Related Issues HSC USC IRB.
Implementation of Privacy Board Reviews at PCMC Mary Thomason, Intermountain Healthcare Privacy Board Chair.
Laura L. McDermott, PhD, FNP, RN Gale A. Spencer, PhD, RN Binghamton University Decker School of Nursing THE RELATIONSHIP AMONG BARRIERS AND FACILITATORS.
Abstract #3715 Increasing Access for Disparate Women to Participate in Breast Cancer Research Hypothesis Kristina L. Bondurant, Ph.D., Melanie Goodell,
Exempt Research Mary Banks BS, BSN IRB Director CRC IRB and BUMC IRB.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Process Tim Noe Coordinating Center.
Brookhaven Science Associates U.S. Department of Energy 1 Brookhaven National Laboratory Protocol Compliance Monitoring Darcy Mallon May 7, 2009.
Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
Privacy vs. Confidentiality Presentation for IRB Members.
Alena Headd, MSIT, Software Support Analyst, Missouri Cancer Registry and Research Center (MCR-ARC) University of Missouri School of Medicine, Health Management.
Continuing Review VA Requirements Kevin L. Nellis, M.S., M.T. (A.S.C.P.) Program Analyst Program for Research Integrity Development and Education (PRIDE)
Lisa Denney, MPH HRPP Assistant Director Melanie Mace, MA HRPP Education and Training Coordinator Bill Woods, PhD CAPS Policy and Ethics Core November.
Educational Research and the VCOM Institutional Review Board
Clinical Trials. What is a clinical trial? Clinical trials are research studies involving people Used to find better ways to prevent, detect, and treat.
Nursing Care Makes A Difference The Application of Omaha Documentation System on Clients with Mental Illness.
International Research & Research Involving Children K. Lynn Cates, MD Assistant Chief Research & Development Officer Office of Research & Development.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) Human Subject Dr. John N. Austin, Director and Ms. Renee S. Jones, Associate Director Delaware State University Office.
Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subject Protections: Working with the IRB Erin McClure, PhD Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences.
American Public Health Association
Church Orientation Meeting Welcome! Version 1. 2/12/14.
HIPAA – How Will the Regulations Impact Research?.
Teaching Research Methods (Classroom Protocols) Boston University Charles River Campus Boston University Medical Center Mary A. Banks BS, BSN IRB Director.
What’s the Diff? Sue C. Vest, CTR Missouri Cancer Registry This project was supported in part by a cooperative agreement between the Centers for Disease.
Gateway to the Future: Improving the National Vital Statistics System St. Louis, MO June 6 th – June 10 th, 2010 Use of Vital Records for Research: What’s.
ABSTRACT Background: In late 2003, a group of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/National Program of Cancer Registries (CDC/NPCR) staff and faculty/staff.
H I P A A T R A I N I N G Self Directed Module 7 Research Disclosures For Data Custodians START Click to begin…
An Enhanced System for Monitoring Influenza and Pneumonia Deaths in Pennsylvania during the H1N1 Novel Influenza Pandemic Marina O. Matthew,
HUMAN SUBJECTS PROTECTION PROGRAM Office Location: 1350 N. Vine Ave. (one block west of Cherry Ave. & three blocks north of Speedway) PO Box Phone:
Institutional Review Board How-to’s Tracy L. Dietz, Ph.D. UCF IRB Chair.
Scioto County Medical Society Grand Rounds March 31, 2006 Portsmouth, Ohio Kathleen M. Koechlin, RN, MPH, PhD Hepatitis C Coordinator The Ohio Department.
Brown Bag Series on Research Faculty Protection of Human Subjects in Research February 10, 2012 Gerberding Hall 142, University of Washington.
Trends in Cervical & Breast Cancer Screening Practices among Women in Rural & Urban Areas of the United States AcademyHealth 2008 Gender and Health Interest.
Incorporating Multiple Evidence Sources for the Assessment of Breast Cancer Policies and Practices J. Jackson-Thompson, Gentry White, Missouri Cancer Registry,
Health Insurance portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)‏
Say Goodbye to Paper: Web-Based Reporting is Here! Iris Zachary, MS, CTR, Missouri Cancer Registry.
Investigational Devices and Humanitarian Use Devices June 2007.
Urban/Rural Differences in Survival Among Medicare Beneficiaries with Breast Cancer Melony E.S. Sorbero, Ph.D. RAND Corporation Funded by Health Resources.
Office for Research Subjects (ORS) & Research Administration (ORA) In-Sync to Help Make your Research Happen Stephanie Gaudreau, Sr.Research Subjects Specialist,
From Our Point of View!! Sue Vest, CTR; Deb Smith, CTR; Louanne Currence, RHIT, CTR; Jeannette Jackson-Thompson, MSPH, PhD Missouri Cancer Registry, University.
Informed Consent Process Patrick Herbison, MEd, CIP Research Compliance Manager Office of Human Research (OHR)
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION OF BREAST CANCER IN MISSOURI, Faustine Williams, MS., MPH, Stephen Jeanetta, Ph.D. Department of Rural Sociology, Division.
PCOR Privacy and Security Research Scenario Initiative and Legal Analysis and Ethics Framework Development Welcome and Please Sign In »Please sign into.
Human Subjects Update E. Wethington, Chair, UCHS.
 The purpose of IRB is to ensure the rights of research subjects are protected  In accordance with the ethical standards of the U.S. Department of Health.
 The purpose of IRB is to ensure the rights of research subjects are protected  In accordance with the ethical standards of the U.S. Department of Health.
 The purpose of IRB is to ensure the rights of research subjects are protected  In accordance with the ethical standards of the U.S. Department of Health.
Trends in Colorectal Cancer Incidence Rates by Race, Age and Indices of Access to Medical Care in the U.S., Yongping Hao, PhD 1 Ahmedin Jemal,
Presented at the NAACCR Annual Conference Quebec City June 22, 2010.
The NAPHSIS/NCHS Collaboration Past Successes and Future Challenges Salt Lake City, UT June 3 rd – 7 th, 2007 Increasing the Use and Accessibility of Vital.
Unit 3 – Public Health Statistics Chapter 7 – Statistics: Making Sense of Uncertainty.
HIPAA and RESEARCH 5 th Thursday May 31, Page 2.
Lower Mammography Use is Associated with the Geographic Clustering of Late-stage Breast Cancer in Saint Louis City Min Lian, Donna B. Jeffe, Mario Schootman.
Current Legal and Ethical Controversies in American Health Care
University of Central Florida Office of Research & Commercialization
What do Women Know About Breast Density?
Recruiting Diverse Populations to a Study Assessing Perceptions of Breast Cancer Genetic Research: Lessons Learned Colleen Bauza, MPH Department of Public.
Addressing implicit bias in dnp admissions
Table 1: NHBS HET3 Participant Characteristics
Awatef Ahmed Ben Ramadan
University of Central Florida Office of Research & Commercialization
Eliminating Disparities in Adult Immunization: A Primary Care/Public
The HIPAA Privacy Rule and Research
NAACCR/IACR Annual Conference, June 2019
Presentation transcript:

Purpose: To: 1) examine participation of target groups (older women, inner city and rural women; African-American women); and 2) assess impact of the “high risk” classification on participation. Background: Researchers at Washington University (WU) in St. Louis and the University of Missouri-Columbia (MU) collaborated on a study of quality of life among breast cancer survivors. Cases (women with breast cancer, Missouri residents 25 years of age or older at diagnosis) were identified through the Missouri Cancer Registry (MCR), located at MU. Eligible women were sent a cover letter and “permission to release confidential information” form; they also received, in a sealed envelope, a 2-page HIPAA authorization and 3-page consent form, which explained that participation would entail two minute interviews (the first occurring1-year post diagnosis (T1) and the second, a year later (T2)); upon completion of each interview, they would receive a gift card for $10 (T1) or $15 (T2). WU’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) classified the study as “minimal risk.” MU’s Health Sciences IRB classified the study as “high risk.” Since all T1 cases and controls were to be interviewed at MU, as a high-risk study all women with breast cancer had to sign all three forms, rather than only the statutorily-required permission form. Obtaining verbal consent and HIPAA authorization was not an option. Controls (women without any type of reportable cancer and matched by age group, county of residence and race (in three metropolitan areas), identified through random-digit-dialing (RDD), could be verbally consented at the start of the interview. Controls received the same T1 and T2 gift-card compensation as cases. Conclusions: Some target populations (older women, African- American women and inner-city women) were under-represented. Classification as a high-risk study and lack of accurate addresses for cases negatively impacted participation of women with breast cancer. Discussion: Central cancer registries (CCRs) that have primarily focused on public health surveillance may encounter unexpected challenges when they try to incorporate research involving contact with patients in their activities. Two major barriers encountered in this project were lack of an accurate current address for cases and IRB classification as a high-risk project which meant all cases had to sign and return three documents rather than a single-page form. These barriers significantly raised costs and lowered the response rate for women with breast cancer. By entering into a business associate agreement with an authorized post office, a CCR can obtain and verify current addresses. To be effective, this must be done on a regular basis. Investigators should discuss behavioral research projects involving cancer patients with IRB staff prior to submitting an IRB application. There needs to be an understanding between the investigator and the IRB about potential risk to participants. Methods: A Certified Tumor Registrar identified potentially eligible cases in the database. The research team sent a cover letter and two copies of each form to each woman. If all three signed forms were returned, contact information was provided to interviewers. RDD was used to identify and interview matched controls. MCR is supported in part by a cooperative agreement between the CDC and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) (#U58/DP ) and a Surveillance Contract between DHSS and the University of Missouri. This project was supported by a contract between Washington University in St. Louis and the University of Missouri. Results: From June 2007 through May 2009, 4,171 women with primary breast cancer potentially met eligibility criteria. Of these, 151 were excluded due to death, illness/disability or inability to speak English; thus, 3,070 women possibly met eligibility criteria. 30% (N = 1,200) signed all 3 forms 40% (N = 1,727) refused to participate If 323 women with whom no contact was made are excluded, 3,697 would meet eligibility criteria, increasing participation to 32% (N = 1,200) and refusal to 44% (N = 1,727). Of the 1,200 consented cases, 1,164 completed the T1 interview. 27% (319) of interviewed cases were age compared with 13% (216) of eligible women who refused. 44% (527) of interviewed cases were age compared with 35% (574) of eligible women who refused. 29% (348) of interviewed cases were age 65 or older compared with 52% (837) of eligible women who refused. Of the 1,164 cases interviewed at T1, 6% (71) were African American compared with 11% of eligible women who were not interviewed and 9% of eligible women who were not interviewed but could be contacted. The CASRO response rate for controls at T1 was 69% (N = 1,965). How can we make it easier for women with cancer to participate in research while protecting human subjects? J. Jackson-Thompson, MSPH, PhD 1,2, S. Culter, BSN, RN, PhD 1,2,, C. Schmaltz, MA 1,3, Y. Liang, MA 1,3 University of Missouri-Columbia 1 Missouri Cancer Registry, 2 Department of Health Management & Informatics, 3 Department of Statistics