Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Original research article

Ethical standards for medical research in the Israeli military - review of the changes in the last decade

Authors: Ayal Hassidim, Raeed Kayouf, Nirit Yavnai, Naomi Panush, David Dagan, Tarif Bader, Michael Hartal

Published in: Israel Journal of Health Policy Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Israel Defense Forces Medical Corps (IDF MC) institutional review board (IRB) is one of approximately 50 IRBs active in Israel. In addition to routine IRB considerations it must also address in its deliberations specific safeguards in place in the IDF to protect research volunteers in the military environment. In this report, we present the characteristics of the IDF IRB, including the unique circumstances that led to a 2008 change in the pre-IRB advisory and preparatory process (APP). We also present quantitative data on the IRB’s throughput and outcomes, in order to provide a benchmark for other IRBs.

Methods

We reviewed all relevant IDF regulations, both historical and current, pertaining to the structure, activity and oversight of the IRB and of medical research conducted in the IDF. Additionally, we analyzed the ethical review process for all research proposals submitted to the IDF APP between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015.

Results

In 2008 the IDF implemented several major changes which have had a substantial impact on the ethical regulation of military medical research. The period following these changes has seen a rise in the number of research proposals submitted to the IDF IRB annually. During the years 2013–2015, 377 research proposals entered the APP, of which 329 were deemed appropriate for IRB deliberation. Eight study protocols were granted waivers, 19 were rejected, and the remaining 302 were authorized. Overall, 345 of the 377 research proposals submitted (92 %) were ultimately cleared for execution; 310 of 329 proposals (94 %) deliberated by the IRB were authorized. The IRB required protocol revisions for 47 % of the research proposals, one-third of which were revisions directly associated with military-specific ethical precautions.

Conclusions

Guided by the principles of protecting personal autonomy in the complex military setting, the IDF has implemented several unique measures aimed at maintaining the highest ethical standards in medical research. By sharing research approval process data similar to those presented here, medical institutions can help build and support a peer-based benchmarking process through which individual IRBs can appraise their own processes and approval rates.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hurran E. Patients’ rights: from alder Hey to the Nuremberg code. History and policy. 2002. p. 1–10. Hurran E. Patients’ rights: from alder Hey to the Nuremberg code. History and policy. 2002. p. 1–10.
2.
go back to reference Association GAotWM. WMA declaration of Geneva. 1948. Association GAotWM. WMA declaration of Geneva. 1948.
6.
go back to reference Platteborze LS, Young-McCaughan S, King-Letzkus I, McClinton A, Halliday A, Jefferson TC. Performance improvement/research advisory panel: a model for determining whether a project is a performance or quality improvement activity or research. Mil Med. 2010;175(4):289–91.CrossRefPubMed Platteborze LS, Young-McCaughan S, King-Letzkus I, McClinton A, Halliday A, Jefferson TC. Performance improvement/research advisory panel: a model for determining whether a project is a performance or quality improvement activity or research. Mil Med. 2010;175(4):289–91.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Committee IMAE. the Anthrax trial - final summery. 2008. Committee IMAE. the Anthrax trial - final summery. 2008.
11.
go back to reference Adams P, Kaewkungwal J, Limphattharacharoen C, Prakobtham S, Pengsaa K, Khusmith S. Is your ethics committee efficient? using “IRB metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the faculty of tropical medicine. Thailand: Mahidol University; 2014. Adams P, Kaewkungwal J, Limphattharacharoen C, Prakobtham S, Pengsaa K, Khusmith S. Is your ethics committee efficient? using “IRB metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the faculty of tropical medicine. Thailand: Mahidol University; 2014.
12.
go back to reference Matheson LA, Huber AM, Warner A, Rosenberg AM. Ethics application protocols for multicentre clinical studies in Canada: a paediatric rheumatology experience. Paediatr Child Health. 2012;17(6):313.PubMedPubMedCentral Matheson LA, Huber AM, Warner A, Rosenberg AM. Ethics application protocols for multicentre clinical studies in Canada: a paediatric rheumatology experience. Paediatr Child Health. 2012;17(6):313.PubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Edwards SJ, Stone T, Swift T. Differences between research ethics committees. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(01):17–23.CrossRefPubMed Edwards SJ, Stone T, Swift T. Differences between research ethics committees. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2007;23(01):17–23.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(1):214–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res. 2006;41(1):214–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, Neumayer L, Hawn MT. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg. 2005;190(5):805–9.CrossRefPubMed Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, Neumayer L, Hawn MT. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg. 2005;190(5):805–9.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Conforti L, Ross K, Hess B, Lynn L, Holmboe E, editors. Length of time needed for institutional review board approval or exemption of quality improvement projects among subset of US training programs. Academy for Healthcare Improvement Symposium. Pennsylvania: The American Board of Internal Medicine Philadelphia; 2008. Conforti L, Ross K, Hess B, Lynn L, Holmboe E, editors. Length of time needed for institutional review board approval or exemption of quality improvement projects among subset of US training programs. Academy for Healthcare Improvement Symposium. Pennsylvania: The American Board of Internal Medicine Philadelphia; 2008.
Metadata
Title
Ethical standards for medical research in the Israeli military - review of the changes in the last decade
Authors
Ayal Hassidim
Raeed Kayouf
Nirit Yavnai
Naomi Panush
David Dagan
Tarif Bader
Michael Hartal
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 2045-4015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0113-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 1/2016 Go to the issue