Department/Program chairs and heads of administrative divisions are responsible for the initial review of all research emanating from their departments/divisions. All applications submitted to the IRB must be signed by the chair/head and the chair/head will recommend the level of review. No application should be sent to the IRB until the chair/head feels that the application is complete.
Federal regulations permit the IRB to exempt from review certain categories of research when the data collected is not linked or identifiable to participants and any risks present will not cause harm or discomfort beyond minimal.
What Exemption Means: "Exemption" as used in this document means exemption from the requirements set forth in Regulations for the Protection of Human Subjects (Title 45 Part 46 of the Code of Federal Regulations), such as the requirement for a written informed consent document. At Kenyon, determinations of exemption are made by the IRB.
What Exemption Does Not Mean: "Exemption" does not mean that the research activity is exempt from the laws of the State of Ohio, and it does not mean that the research need not conform to the canons of sound research ethics.
Generally, these exemptions do not apply to
Only the IRB may determine whether a study or research protocol qualifies for exemption so the researcher must file an IRB Review application. As part of the narrative, the investigator must identify and explain which federal exemption [from the [45 CFR 46.101 (b)(1-6)] definitions summarized below] applies to the proposed research. In addition, the investigator should attach any interview guides, survey questions or other instruments to be used in the gathering of information. The IRB will evaluate the application and notify the investigator in writing as to the determination.
A determination that research is exempt does not imply that investigators have no ethical responsibilities to subjects in such research; it means only that the regulatory requirements related to IRB review, informed consent, and assurance of compliance do not apply to the research.
Research activities in which the only involvement of human subjects fits one or more of the categories listed below may qualify for exemption from review. These exempt categories do not apply to research involving deception of subjects where the investigator does not disclose the true purpose of the research and/or the results of the subject's participation in the study.
Further, a claim of exemption in the application does not necessarily exempt investigators from the requirement of gaining consent or permission from subjects. Most research requires the use of an informed consent document, an approved alteration, a letter of explanation or specific instructions on how to express consent. For minimal risk studies where there are no subject identifiers (anonymous data are collected), an information sheet, cover letter or statement in the introduction to the survey or other instrument may be substituted in place of a written and signed consent form. (See section 5.4 of this manual.)
Existing Data, Records or Specimens, Recorded Anonymously
Research involving the collection or study of existing data, documents, records, pathological specimens, or diagnostic specimens, if these sources are publicly available or if the information is recorded by the investigator in such a manner that subjects cannot be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects .[45 CFR 46.101 (b)(4)]
This provision in the federal regulations permits the IRB to grant an exemption when all of the data, records, specimens, etc., already exist at the time the investigator proposes the research. Existing data means data from publicly available sources and applies to retrospective studies involving data that is already collected and must be "on the shelf" when the protocol is submitted. The exemption does not apply if some of the data or materials exist, but the research will gather additional data or materials. In addition, the exemption applies only if the investigator records the data in such a way that participants cannot be identified. This means that if any codes exist by which participants could be identified, the exemption does not apply.
Personal identifiers linked to participants include names, initials, date of birth, social security numbers, agency record numbers, coded numbers, or other examples.
Database files may qualify for exemption if there are procedures in the release of information from the source that prevent identification of individuals. It is not enough that participants are not identifiable in the final publication. In all cases, the investigator must describe to the IRB the exact source of the data, records or specimens. "Publicly available sources" of data include examples such as telephone books and public records. Data bank, archival or other types of organizational records may be exempt depending on the policies and procedures to prevent the release of personal identifiers. The IRB will determine whether exemption can apply in each case.
Surveys, Interviews, Public Observations, and Educational Tests
Research involving the use of educational tests (cognitive, diagnostic, aptitude, achievement), survey procedures, interview procedures or observation of public behavior,unless : (a) information obtained is recorded in such a manner that subjects can be identified, directly or through identifiers linked to the subjects ; and (b) any disclosure of the human subjects' responses outside the research could reasonably place the subjects at risk of criminal or civil liability or be damaging to the subjects' financial standing, employability, or reputation . [ 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(2)]
<>This exemption is available for research within any of the stated categories involving adults, unless the information is both recorded in such a way that the human subjects can be identified (by links or otherwise) and the disclosure of the subjects' responses outside the research could place the subjects at risk or cause personal harm. Thus, surveys involving sensitive topics (such as drug or alcohol use, sexual habits, detailed health histories, illegal behavior, etc.) where there are codes or other links between the information and the subject are not exempt. In studies that will collect data by way of oral history interviews and are designed to create generalizable knowledge in a systematic investigation, the IRB will review such applications as exempt or expedited depending on the level of risk on a case by case basis.
Certain educational tests are exempt from IRB review: tests of knowledge, mastery and skills that do not include individual subject identifiers or ask sensitive information from the subjects.
Observational research involving sensitive aspects of human behavior, or in settings where subjects have a reasonable expectation of privacy, is not exempt.
Sensitive survey research is seldom exempt. A sensitive survey includes questions about illegal activities or highly personal aspects of the subject's behavior, life experiences, or attitudes. Questionnaires or surveys covering sensitive topics, however, may qualify for exemption if they: (a) insure the anonymity of the subject; (b) inform the potential subjects as to the sensitive nature of the topics they will be asked to address; and (c) the study does not exceed minimal risk.
The exemption does not apply to research involving the observation of children, except for research involving observations of public behavior when the investigator does not participate in the activities being observed (i.e., the investigator does not manipulate or influence the observed activities).
Research under this category that would not otherwise be exempt may qualify for exemption if it involves elected or appointed public officials or candidates for public office; for example, surveys, interviews or observation of public officials or candidates for public office [45 CFR 46.101 (b) (3)].
Educational Settings and Normal Educational Practices
Research conducted in established or commonly accepted educational settings, involving normal educational practices, such as (a) research on regular and special education instructional strategies, or (b) research on the effectiveness of or the comparison among instructional techniques, curricula, or classroom management methods . [ 45 CFR 46.101 (b)(1)]
To qualify for exemption under this category, all of the research must be conducted in a commonly accepted educational setting and should not involve sensitive topics (e.g., sexual behavior, drug abuse, personal issues) nor increase the level of risk or discomfort beyond normal, routine educational practices. Provisions should be made to insure the existence of a non-coercive environment for all students, including those who choose not to participate. Written permission of the school or appropriate agency should be obtained prior to the implementation of the research, including review of the proposed study by the human subject's research office or committee as applicable to or required by each school site.
Other Exempted Research: Public Benefit Service Programs, Taste and Food Quality Studies
Also exempt are research and demonstration projects which are conducted by or subject to the approval of department and agency heads and which are designed to study, evaluate, or otherwise examine public benefit or services programs; procedures for obtaining benefits or services under those programs; possible changes in or alternatives to those programs or procedures; or possible changes in methods or levels of payment for benefits or services under those programs [45 CFR 46.101(b) (5)].
This category may also be applied to evaluations of State, City or County programs provided that the program being studied delivers public benefits or services, there is statutory authority over the program, and there is no significant intrusion or invasion of participants' privacy.
The federal rules also exempt taste and food quality evaluation and consumer studies if (a) wholesome food without additives are consumed, or (b) a food is consumed that contains a food ingredient at or below the level and for a use found to be safe by the FDA or is approved by the EPA or the Food Safety and Inspections Service of the USDA [45 CFR 46.101 (b) (6)] .
Research Categories Eligible for Expedited Review
The categories eligible for expedited review in accordance with [45 CFR 46.110] include a number of specific examples approved by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as published in the Federal Register.
Among others (mostly medical devices or clinical studies of drugs), research activities that may be accepted by the IRB for expedited review include research involving materials (data, documents, records, or specimens) that have been collected or will be collected solely for non-research purposes: collection of data from voice, video, digital, or image recordings made for research purposes;
For the full list and additional guidance on the categories go to HHS document "Categories of Research That May Be Reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) through an Expedited Review Procedure"
Most applications submitted to the Kenyon College IRB qualify for either exemption or expedited review. Research that does not qualify for these two lower levels of review must undergo a full IRB review by a quorum of IRB members at a convened meeting. The application process and forms remain the same as for the other levels, but investigators should note that a full review may take longer after receipt of a complete, signed, application. In the event that no additional information, clarifications or modifications are requested, the IRB may approve a study within a short time period, but investigators should be aware that the initial full review process often does not result in an outright approval of the research. Minor or major revisions and written clarifications may be requested, adding time to the review process.
In a Full Review, the IRB performs a detailed examination of the review application including the proposed informed consent form, and all supporting documentation, including any recruitment materials, questionnaires, or survey instruments.
IRB members with a potential conflict of interest in any review must recuse themselves from voting and participation in the deliberations. These disclosures should be stated prior to the agenda item where the protocol is presented for discussion. After a full discussion of the complete application, the IRB Chair calls for a vote. Results of IRB decisions are then communicated in writing to the investigator. This letter will justify any conditions required for final approval, may request additional information or revisions, and will indicate the next steps in the review process, if any.
The IRB may come to one of four determinations:
1. Unconditional Approval: Approval of the study as submitted without questions or clarifications;
2. Approval with Stipulations: Acceptance of the protocol with requests for clarification and/or revisions (minor changes that can be reviewed and accepted by the Chair, a designated IRB member with relevant expertise, or a subcommittee of the IRB);
3. Deferred Approval: Deferral of the application pending written responses to major or substantive questions raised by the IRB during the initial review (requires convening of the full IRB for a second deliberation meeting);
4. Tabling: Approval is not granted until further information is provided or specific changes are made. When new information is submitted, the protocol is reviewed again by the full IRB.
5. Disapproval: Disapproval of the research application (the study cannot be conducted) with the right of appeal. Investigators have the right to discuss any of the IRB outcomes directly with the Chair. In the case of disapproval, the letter of determination will include specific reasons for the disapproval with provision of an opportunity for reply and appeal by the investigator. The reply can be in writing or in person at a convened meeting of the IRB, or both. In the end, the IRB retains final authority for approval of proposed research involving human subjects.
All meetings of the IRB are documented in written minutes to include an agenda of topics, attendance, protocols reviewed, actions taken, voting results, reasons for requiring changes in a project, or reasons for disapproving, suspending, or terminating a project. These minutes are available for review and action by IRB members at subsequent meetings; when approved in final form, the minutes are available for review by the Provost, the signatory official for human subjects research at Kenyon, the President of Kenyon College, and the Kenyon College legal council.
Research/study proposals that have been approved as exempted from review do not need to be submitted for re-approval or continuation review as long as no changes or modifications that will no longer qualify the study for an exemption are contemplated by the investigator. Any substantive departures from or changes to the exempted procedures must be submitted to the IRB as modifications and could result in an upgrading of the study by the IRB to that of an Expedited or Full Review. However, if the research has been conducted according to the initial exemption, the investigator should submit only a Final Report Form upon completion of the study.
Approvals under the expedited and full review categories, on the other hand, are granted by the IRB for not more than one year. Federal regulations require the IRB to conduct "continuing review" of ongoing research, including multi-year studies, no less than annually. The IRB sets the next review date at the time of initial approval based primarily on the degree of risk of the study: the higher the risk, the earlier the IRB may set the expiration date of the initial approval. Other factors include the nature of the study and the vulnerability of the subject population. The IRB notifies the investigator of the expiration date for "re-approval," and a reminder notice is sent to the investigator at least one month in advance of the actual date.
To apply for continuation of the research, the investigator submits an IRB Progress Report requesting re-approval. By completing this report the investigator also informs the IRB of the status of the research project:
The IRB Progress Report must be signed by the principal investigator certifying that the study will continue to be carried out as described in the re-approval application and in accordance with the research ethics, norms and standards in the respective discipline. In the case of student or visiting faculty research, the responsible faculty member must approve and sign the reapproval application.
Conflict of interest forms must also be submitted with the reapproval application for all investigators whether continuing or new investigators who fit the definition of investigator in the Kenyon College Conflict of Interest policy.
Projects that initially required full IRB review most often will require full IRB reapproval review unless the project qualifies the study for an expedited review: no changes have been instituted or are contemplated since the initial review; the changes are minor or administrative in nature; the research is closed to the enrollment of new participants; all participants have completed research interventions, and the research remains active only for long-term follow-up of participants; no participants have been enrolled and no additional risks have been identified; or where the remaining activities are limited to data analysis.
When continuing review of research does not occur prior to the end of the approval period specified by the IRB, the IRB approval expires automatically. Failure to either close a study or apply for re-approval prior to the expiration date constitutes non-compliance.
Under any of the review categories, if the ending date expires prior to submission of the re-approval application, the investigator must suspend participant contact and all data collection until the re-approval is obtained from the IRB. The investigator with an expired protocol may be subject to a protocol audit and may be required to submit an application for review and approval as a new study. No new participants may be contacted, recruited, or enrolled during the interim period, and if data has been collected, the data cannot be used in the study. If the study is formally completed, terminated, or cancelled, the investigator must submit a Final Report Form so that the study file may be closed permanently.
Modifications to currently approved protocols, research instruments, or to the informed consent process must be submitted to the IRB for review and approval prior to implementation. Minor changes that do not increase the risk to participants may receive an expedited review per the eligibility criteria established for the continuation of expedited review studies (see section 4.2).
Modifications that increase the risks to GREATER than minimal are forwarded to the full IRB committee for review.
Changes to approved protocols cannot be implemented prior to IRB review and approval except when necessary to eliminate immediate hazards to the subject.
Any unanticipated risks to subjects, emergency changes in procedures, adverse events, or instances of noncompliance with college, state or federal regulations must be reported immediately to the IRB for appropriate and timely resolution
Investigators may request modifications to currently approved research by submitting an IRB Progress Report. Modifications can be requested at any time or along with requests for re-approval if a study is about to expire. In Section F of the IRB Progress Report, investigators can specify the proposed modification(s) in terms of participant enrollments, instruments, or any proposed changes in the scope of the project, research methods, risks and benefits, or informed consent, as applicable. Changes in the risks, benefits, or research procedures may require modifications to the consent form and may, in some cases, warrant the re-consenting of participants already in the study. Revised consent forms that are proposed for use must be submitted with the modification request.
The date of approval of the modification does not change the date by which the regularly scheduled re-approval review of the project is to be completed. If a modification involves the changing of principal investigator(s), a letter from the original investigator indicating the need for the change plus a letter from the new investigator accepting responsibility for the research or study should be included along with the modification. In the case of addition or deletion or any assistant investigators, the principal investigator should inform the IRB in Section C of the IRB Progress Report.
Conflict of interest forms must be submitted for all new investigators.
If these conditions are met, the investigator may submit a Final Report Form available for downloading at the IRB website. The form requests a status report, a brief narrative summary of the research to date and plans for disposition of human subjects research data, and a certification statement by the principal investigator with agreement to retain all protocol records for a minimum of three years for possible audit by the IRB.
In addition, the IRB may issue a Notice of Terminated Study independently under a number of circumstances such as:
Any decision, review outcome, or audit finding may be appealed to the IRB. Investigators must submit their appeal in a letter to the IRB Chair outlining the reasons for the appeal and why the IRB decision, review or audit outcome should be reconsidered. If the appeal involves a relatively minor request, the Chair or a subcommittee of the IRB may consider the issue and reach an equitable determination. However, appeals of expedited and full review outcomes or any other substantive matters such as audit findings must be reviewed and decided by the full IRB at a convened meeting. The investigator may request to be present at the meeting or may be invited to do so by the IRB to clarify any issues pertinent to the written appeal. After presentation of the information and review of the documents, the full IRB will vote to approve or not approve the appeal. The decision of the IRB will be final.
Conflicts of interest may occur when an investigator's research responsibilities compete with his or her private interests, such as financial interests, raising concerns of objectivity and improper gain. Conflicts of interest may exist despite the highest standards of conduct and candor. Fortunately, most conflicts can be successfully resolved and managed without impeding research activities.
Potential conflicts of interest and disclosures also apply to IRB members when they are assigned protocol applications for review. IRB members should consider possible or potential conflicts of interest and determine whether a particular role or relationship could affect his or her objectivity before reviewing, participating in a protocol discussion, or voting on a protocol application. Possible relationships to consider include: the IRB member is a listed investigator or advisor on an application; the member has a familial or close personal relationship with the investigator; the member holds a financial interest in the outcome of the research; or other concerns that warrant abstaining from review, deliberation and voting on a protocol.
In the event of a potential conflict of interest the IRB member should not accept the protocol for review and return the application for assignment to another member; or at full review meetings, any member(s) should disclose conflicts or simply state that participation is not appropriate and then recuse themselves from discussion and voting on the protocol.
HIPAA stands for the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. DHHS issued HIPAA regulations to protect the confidentiality of personal health care information effective April 14, 2003. Protected health information is defined as individually identifiable health information maintained or transmitted by a covered entity in any form or medium and includes: demographic information; medical history; information relating to the past, present or future physical or mental health or condition of an individual that is identifiable; the provision of health care to an individual or the payment for the provision of health care; physical examinations, blood tests, x-rays; and other diagnostic and medical procedures.
Privacy standards within HIPAA limit the use and disclosure of health information; restrict most disclosures to the minimum intended purpose; establish new requirements for access to records by researchers; and protect the confidentiality and integrity of health information.
Research protocols submitted by these components to the IRB, and which include the gathering of health or mental health information, must develop and submit a HIPAA Authorization form that contains core elements in the HIPAA Privacy Rule: description of the information to be used or disclosed; identification of the persons or class of persons authorized to make the use or disclosure of the protected health information; identification of the persons or class of persons to whom the covered entity is authorized to make the use or disclosure; and expiration date or event; the individual's signature and date; and, if signed by a personal representative, a description of his or her authority to act for the individual.
For more information and templates go to the HIPAA web page.
For research projects and studies involving subcontractors or other subrecipients, Kenyon College policy requires documentation and monitoring of human subjects compliance by way of specific language to be contained in all Subaward Agreements. Research investigators at Kenyon College should include the following language in subawards or subcontracts:
"The SUB agrees that the rights and welfare of human subjects who may be involved in performance of this Subaward Agreement will be protected in accordance with procedures specified in a current Institutional Assurance appropriate for the research in question on file with the Office of Human Research Protection, DHHS. SUB agrees to provide Kenyon College with a copy of its current approved Institutional Assurance and copies of all reviews, approvals, reports and any other documents created by its institutional review board relating to human subjects research conducted under this Subaward Agreement. SUB understands that human subjects research conducted under this Subaward Agreement is subject to review by the Kenyon IRB, and SUB agrees not to begin such research until it receives written approval from the Kenyon IRB. SUB further agrees that with respect to human subjects research conducted under the Subaward Agreement, it shall promptly notify Kenyon College of any injuries to human subjects or other unanticipated problems involving risks to subjects or others; any serious or continuing noncompliance with its Institutional Assurance; or any suspension or termination of IRB approval."