Modified on March 5, 2026 to remove the “subscribe” option. This blog has been retired and replaced by the S.P.I.R.I.T. newsletter.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, Compliance Rockstars, Clinical Research Professionals, Ethics Enthusiasts, and Investigators!270+ blog subscribers and counting!
It makes me ecstatic to see more and more folks subscribing to the blog! I’m happy that this blog is a useful resource to you all. I aim to continue to provide meaningful, unique content. As I mentioned before, I love to explain complex topics in a simpler format. Speaking of learning and reinforcing concepts:
To solidify a concept, I like to see the content in various mediums (e.g., text, audio, visual).
Podcasts can be an excellent learning tool! Whether you are reinforcing concepts or would like to learn something new, podcasts can aid in this. If you love learning on the go, then this post is for you!
In this post, I will list the best podcasts for staying up to date on research, compliance, and administration.
Advertisements
As a general reminder, these are my own interpretations. Any legal information discussed within this post should be discussed with your institution.
Let’s learn about these top-notch podcasts! Please note that these aren’t listed in any particular order.
Is there a podcast that you feel fits into this category that I didn’t mention? Please leave a comment below for myself and the community!
Dan Sfera aka “The Clinical Trials Guru” shares his thoughts on the clinical research industry, business, entrepreneurship, sports and really just about anything he feels like at the moment.
I absolutely love to follow Dan on LinkedIn. He offers extraordinary insights to the clinical research community. You can also check out the following resources related to Dan’s work:
This podcast discusses issues that impact scientific research monthly, from clinical research to ethical considerations. Hosted by Alexa McClellan.
There is a new episode each month. CITI Program’s blog also provides insights to their podcast episodes by breaking down the episode by podcast chapters and providing transcripts (example below):
Engaging with Online Communities: Ethical Considerations for Researchers (episode)
Engaging with Online Communities: Ethical Considerations for Researchers (blog)
This podcast discusses a broad range of technology ethics topics. Hosted by Daniel Smith.
There is a new episode each month. CITI Program’s blog also provides insights to their podcast episodes by breaking down the episode by podcast chapters and providing transcripts (example below):
This podcast discusses issues that impact higher education institutions. Hosted by Ed Butch.
There is a new episode each month. CITI Program’s blog also provides insights to their podcast episodes by breaking down the episode by podcast chapters and providing transcripts (example below):
Professional Development: A Conversation about Career Transitions (episode)
Professional Development: A Conversation about Career Transitions (blog)
This podcast dives into the intricacies of pre-award, post-award, compliance, communications, and all the essential elements in between. You can tune in on the last Thursday of every month for insightful discussions and expert insights for research administrators across the globe. The SRAI blog is also an excellent resource to deep dive into the complexities of research administration.
Though I haven’t personally checked out this podcast yet, these are my TOP THREE episodes I would check out first:
This podcast covers ethics and compliance-related topics and addresses issues ranging from FCPA to HIPAA to helplines.
Though I haven’t had the pleasure of listening to this podcast yet, I like how the episodes are succinct. If you’ve heard of the phrase, “Big things come in small packages”, this certainly applies! If you have a short attention span (which I tend to have at times), then this podcast is for you! Here are my TOP THREE episodes I plan to check out first:
This podcast is dedicated to helping scientists thrive. Brought to you by STEMCELL Technologies.
On their website, you can find excellent educational resources. With respect to podcasts, you can find summaries and video recordings of each episode here: Podcasts
JP Flores sets out to capture stories of resilience, scientific journeys, and inspiration that have built and shaped many diverse scientists.
I appreciate that this podcast strives to celebrate scientists. I haven’t had the opportunity to listen to this podcast yet, but these are the TOP THREE I am striving to check out first:
Advarra speaks with leading experts to dig into pressing issues and explore solutionswithin research and clinical trials.
Advarra has a plethora of resources ranging from their blog to on-demand webinars. This was my go-to podcast when I first started in compliance trying to learn the ropes. Though they haven’t had any recent episodes, I still find the information useful!
Modified on March 5, 2026 to remove the “subscribe” option. This blog has been retired and replaced by the S.P.I.R.I.T. newsletter.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, Compliance Rockstars, Clinical Research Professionals, Ethics Enthusiasts, and Investigators!260+ blog subscribers and counting!
Advertisements
Welcome to the RAC Digest!
RAC stands for “Research Administration and Compliance”.
The RAC Digest will feature select publications from the previous month.
These 12 articles will come from journals related to research administration and research compliance.
As a general reminder, these are my own interpretations. Any legal information discussed within this post should be discussed with your institution.
If your institution does not have access to the publications listed below and you would like access, please fill out the form below:
The study surveyed 642 IRB professionals and found substantial support for incorporating gender-neutral language in IRB guidance and consent documents.
Though this concept is highly supported, there are a few obstacles that hinder application. A couple of examples include:
Lack of resources and awareness
Perception that changes are not required by federal regulations
Most respondents agreed that gender-neutral language is appropriate in IRB guidance, templates, and consent forms regardless of AAHRPP accreditation status.
However, respondents whose IRBs were not accredited showed stronger agreement than respondents whose IRBs were accredited.
Most respondents indicated that the FDA and OHRP should provide guidance for IRBs and investigators regarding the use of gender-neutral language in IRB materials.
Bobier challenges the conception of undue inducement.
An offer is considered “undue” if it impairs the individualโs ability to make rational or voluntary decisions.
He proposes a collectivist alternative, arguing that inducements are undue when they result in the disproportionate enrollment of protected classes.
This theory draws on the legal concept of disparate impact. I.e., shifting the ethical concern from individual autonomy to collective justice and equity.
Finally, he states that this method of thought can be easily operationalized by IRBs.
Inducements are undue when they result in an unjustified disparate enrollment pattern:
A protected class of individuals is overly enrolled,
that protected class is not integrally tied to the study objectives, and
There are alternative recruitment methods available that would not result in this enrollment pattern.
The article emphasizes that the inclusion of adolescents is essential for developing effective, age-appropriate interventions and policies.
An interesting point to mention is that if state laws permit minors to consent to specific medical services (e.g., contraception), they can also independently consent to participate in research related to the service.
Researchers and IRBs are encouraged to design studies that minimize risks and respect adolescents’ autonomy.
Relatedly, the authors offer guidance on how IRBs can interpret regulations to support ethical inclusion, e.g., when waivers of parental consent are appropriate.
The study found no significant difference in informed consent comprehension between detained individuals with ADHD and those without ADHD.
Individuals with ADHD and without ADHD demonstrated similar willingness to sign the informed consent forms and participate in research.
Unfortunately, the overall understanding of the informed consent content was low in both participant groups.
This highlights a broader issue in conveying complex consent form content effectively to detained individuals.
Further research could investigate the effectiveness of alternative informed consent formats in improving the understanding of informed consent such as:
The study aimed to examine how the quality of interactions between clinical research staff and participants from racial and ethnic minority groups affects their trust in the research process and their willingness to engage in future clinical trials.
The study found that negative experiences were associated with a decreased willingness among participants to enroll in future studies.
This suggests that improving the quality of interactions between research staff and participants from minority groups can enhance trust and potentially increase participation rates in clinical trials.
It is recommended to implement training programs for research staff to guide culturally sensitive interactions and foster trust.
Emory University’s Office of Research Administration (ORA), in collaboration with the Goizueta Business School, developed a proof-of-concept generative AI chatbot named ORAgpt.
This tool aims to provide research administrators with instant, accurate information on ORA processes and policies.
Further, the tool would streamline administrative tasks and supporting research operations.
The study challenges the conventional view of participant recruitment as a transactional, outcome-driven process.
The author advocates for a relationship-building approach, emphasizing sustainable, respectful participantโresearcher interactions.
Here, the invitational rhetoric framework is explored in how it can build sustainable participantโresearcher relationships.
Using this framework as an analytical lens, the study evaluated how study advertisements on university Study Discovery Sites (SDSs) foster conditions of:
Value,
Safety, and
Freedom.
Several recommendations were provided to researchers including designing recruitment materials that avoid oppressive language (e.g., stating “participant” in lieu of “subject”).
Modified on March 5, 2026 to remove the “subscribe” option. This blog has been retired and replaced by the S.P.I.R.I.T. newsletter.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, Compliance Rockstars, Clinical Research Professionals, Ethics Enthusiasts, and Investigators!250+ subscribers and counting!
Advertisements
I hope everyone has been doing well! It’s time for another monthly recap of research and compliance news. For those who have not read this type of blog post before:
Research Compliance Chronicle:
At the beginning of each month, I will summarize key regulatory news related to research compliance from the previous month.
Consider this your one-stop shop for “ICYMI regulatory update”!
As a general reminder, these are my own interpretations. Any legal information discussed within this post should be discussed with your institution. Please note that only links will be provided from the Federal Register for the numerous rules published by the FDA.
A resolution was called on the Trump administration to reverse course on a decision to stop seeking public input on many major changes to programs and policies overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
A key quote should be noted from this press release: โPublic comment periods are a key component of our First Amendment rights and demonstrate a commitment to an engaged public to wise, representative government.โ
Related (though not in this press release), HHS has created a form on Regulations.gov to submit ideas to rescind regulations that are not making the US health system better: Deregulation Suggestions Form
A letter was written to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. for firing HHS employees responsible for managing and responding to public records requests, despite publicly promising โradical transparency.โ
HHS sub-agencies are often responsible for managing public access to government records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
The sub-agencies which are impacted (and listed below), are responsible for handling exceptionally sensitive information, including health records, legal documents, and proprietary company information:
National Institutes of Health (NIH),
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and
If you work within export controls and/or conflicts of interest, this press release is for you!
The University of Pennsylvania was found to have inaccurate and incomplete foreign disclosures.
Under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965 (20 U.S.C. ยง1011f), U.S. colleges and universities receiving federal financial aid must disclose gifts, contracts, or restricted agreements from foreign sources valued at $250,000 or more annually.
Per the press release, Section 117 is intended to protect national security and academic integrity by monitoring foreign influence in higher education.
This draft guidance provides recommendations for screening donors for evidence of, and risk factors for, infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the organism that causes tuberculosis.
Comments must be submitted for review by Monday, July 7, 2025.
This draft guidance updates information regarding sepsis included in the guidance entitled โEligibility Determination for Donors of Human Cells, Tissues, and Cellular and Tissue-Based Products (HCT/Ps), Guidance for Industry,โ dated August 2007 (August 2007 HCT/P DE Guidance).
Once finalized, this guidance will update recommendations for making a donor eligibility determination when screening a donor for clinical evidence of sepsis and clinical signs to consider.
Comments must be submitted for review by Monday, July 7, 2025.
The purpose of this guidance document is to provide an overview of the mechanisms available to submitters through which they can request interactions with the FDA related to medical device submissions.
Comments may be submitted at any time related to this final guidance document.
The FDA issued General Correspondence Letters to two third-party testing companies in China after discovering data that was falsified or invalid.
They couldn’t ensure the reliability and validity of biocompatibility testing and animal safety and performance testing studies conducted at their respective testing facilities.
The General Correspondence Letters are the latest step taken to address concerns around testing data and the integrity of data coming from foreign countries.
The following documents listed below have been rescinded:
Extension of Designation of Scarce Materials or Threatened Materials Subject to COVID-19 Hoarding Prevention Measures; Extension of Effective Date With Modifications, 86 FR 35810 (July 7, 2021).
Opioid Drugs in Maintenance and Detoxification Treatment of Opiate Addiction; Repeal of Current Regulations and Issuance of New Regulations: Delay of Effective Date and Resultant Amendments to the Final Rule, 66 FR 15347 (Mar. 19, 2001).
Practice Guidelines for the Administration of Buprenorphine for Treating Opioid Use Disorder, 86 FR 22439 (Apr. 28, 2021).
Notification of Interpretation and Enforcement of Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 FR 27984 (May 25, 2021).
Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. articulated the Trump Administrationโs decision that it fully intends to withdraw from the World Health Organization (WHO).
He also shared his vision for the future of global health.
Policies, actions, and definitions defined in this Executive Order supersede NIHโs implementation of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) May 2024 U.S. Government Policy for Oversight of Dual Use Research of Concern and Pathogens with Enhanced Pandemic Potential (DURC/PEPP Policy).
NIH will not accept competitive applications for grants and cooperative agreements submitted for due dates after today and/or R&D contract proposals submitted to solicitations issued after today for dangerous gain-of-function research, as defined in Section 8 of the Executive Order.
NIH intends to suspend ongoing funding in accordance with guidance developed under Section 3(b) of the Executive Order.
All NIH awardees should review ongoing research activities to proactively identify potential dangerous gain-of-function research and identify safe actions to halt such research and to effectively comply with guidance once established.
The purpose of this Request for Information (RFI) is to solicit broad community input on priority artificial intelligence (AI) benchmarks and associated benchmark datasets to advance the development, evaluation, and validation of AI applications in cancer research and care.
A benchmark typically includes a dataset, a problem specification, and a defined score.
NIH is requesting input on effective strategies for mitigating controlled-access human genomic data leakage when developing and sharing generative AI tools and applications.
To uphold the principles espoused in the NIH Genomic Data Sharing Policy, NIH has temporarily paused the sharing of generative AI models and their parameters based on NIH human genomic controlled-access data, as well as the retention of these tools beyond the projectโs closeout (see NOT-OD-25-081).
Effective May 5, 2025, NSF will apply a standard indirect cost rate not to exceed 15% to all grants and cooperative agreements awarded to IHEs for which indirect costs are allowable.
Introduced by Rep. Nancy Mace, Violet’s Law, would allow dogs, cats, primates, rabbits, and other animals to be retired and re-homed when they are no longer needed for research in federal labs.
Congressman Raul Ruiz, M.D. and Congressman Larry Bucshon, M.D. announced the introduction of bipartisan legislation to improve participation in clinical trials by underrepresented populations.
This Act builds on the successes of clinical trials legislation passed into law last Congress by addressing economic barriers that can prevent participation in clinical trials.
Modified on March 5, 2026 to remove the “subscribe” option. This blog has been retired and replaced by the S.P.I.R.I.T. newsletter.
Published on 5/26/2025; Revised on 5/28/2025
Thank you, Kim Serpico, Ed.D., CIP, for your thoughtful suggest of including cost within the summary certification table!
Feedback is always welcomed by my readers to ensure I am disseminating information in the most helpful way.
Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening, Compliance Rockstars, Clinical Research Professionals, Ethics Enthusiasts, and Investigators!250+ blog subscribers and counting!
Advertisements
Imagine this…
You have more than two years of experience in your research compliance and regulatory role.
You’ve had exposure to various research areas (e.g., SBER, biomedical, clinical trials).
You’re wondering what to do next to boost your professional development.
Maybe, you think about taking a course or an intensive training specializing in a specific topic.
Or maybe, you’re thinking bigger. You’re thinking about obtaining a certification to showcase your expertise. A certification may even secure a promotion for you. Then, the questions pour in:
Which certification best aligns with my career goals?
What are the requirements to obtain the certification I’m interested in?
Are there any application fees?
Or maybe, you already have a certification, and you ask yourself:
Which certification would complement my current certification to help further advance my career?
I would like to discuss 10 certifications related to research and regulatory compliance. For this post, you can expect:
Summary tables comparing key features of each certification.
A breakdown of the organizations offering these certifications.
A breakdown of each individual certification.
As a general reminder, these are my own interpretations. Any legal information discussed within this post should be discussed with your institution.
Let’s explore these certifications:
PRIM&R, SOCRA, ACRP, and HCCA Certification Quick Comparison
Created as an internationally accepted standard of knowledge, education, and experience by which clinical research professionals will be recognized by the clinical research community.
Current members: $395.00
Non-members: $450.00
Computer based testing (testing center or home proctoring): 1. Additional $115 (North America – USA, Canada, Mexico) 2. Additional $175 countries outside North America
1. Research study start-up 2. Research study implementation 3. Research study closure
Formally recognizes clinical research professionals of all types, regardless of their roles or functional activities on the clinical study team.
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
1. Domains 2. Knowledge statements 3. Tasks
Exam content (Detailed links will be provided below)
ACRP: Certified Clinical Research Associate (CCRA)
Formally recognizes clinical research professionals with experience monitoring and supervising the conduct and progress of clinical trials on behalf of a sponsor.
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
1. Domains 2. Knowledge statements 3. Tasks
Exam content (Detailed links will be provided below)
ACRP: Certified Clinical Research Coordinator (CCRC)
Formally recognizes clinical research professionals with experience coordinating and facilitating clinical trial activities in adherence to GCP, under the direction of a principal investigator.
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
1. Domains 2. Knowledge statements 3. Tasks
Exam content (Detailed links will be provided below)
ACRP: ACRP Medical Device Professional (ACRP-MDP)
Formally recognizes clinical research professionals with specialized knowledge in medical device clinical trials.
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
1. Domains 2. Knowledge statements 3. Tasks
Exam content (Detailed links will be provided below)
ACRP: ACRP Project Manager (ACRP-PM)
Formally recognizes clinical research professionals with specialized knowledge in project management.
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
1. Domains 2. Knowledge statements 3. Tasks
Exam content (Detailed links will be provided below)
HCCA: Certified in Healthcare Research Compliance (CHRC)
Showcase knowledge of relevant regulations and expertise in research compliance processes sufficient to assist the healthcare industry organizations in understanding and addressing legal obligations, and promote organizational integrity through the operation of effective research compliance programs.
Showcase knowledge of relevant regulations and expertise in compliance processes sufficient to assist the healthcare industry organizations in understanding and addressing legal obligations, and promote organizational integrity through the operation of effective compliance programs.
HCCA: Certified in Healthcare Privacy Compliance (CHPC)
Showcase knowledge of relevant regulations and expertise in privacy compliance processes sufficient to assist the healthcare industry organizations in understanding and addressing legal obligations, and promote organizational integrity through the operation of effective privacy compliance programs.
Table 1: Research and regulatory certifications broken down by certification purpose, cost, exam content, and regulatory/ethical frameworks to review.
Advertisements
The Organizations Behind These Certifications
Public Responsibility in Medicine and Research (PRIM&R)
PRIM&R is a nonprofit,โฏfounded in 1974 that works to ensure the highest ethical standards in research by:
Providing education,
Membership, and
Other professional resources to the research and research oversight community, including those who work with:
Human research protections programs (HRPPs),
Institutional review boards (IRBs),
Animal care and use programs,โฏand
Institutional animal care and use committeesโฏ(IACUCs).โฏ
You can read more PRIM&R’s mission, values, and membership here: PRIM&R homepage.
The Society of Clinical Research Associates (SOCRA)
SOCRA is a non-profit, charitable and educational membership organization incorporated in 1991 committed to providing:
Education,
Certification, and
Networking opportunities to all persons involved in clinical research activities.
You can read more SOCRA’s mission, values, and membership here: SOCRA homepage.
The Association of Clinical Research Professionals (ACRP)
ACRP is a registered charitable organization whose mission is to promote excellence in clinical research. Their vision ensures that clinical research is performed ethically, responsibly, and professionally everywhere in the world. ACRP is moving the people and practice of clinical research forward by:
Being the Most Passionate Advocate for the Clinical Research Profession.
Providing the Tools Clinical Research Professionals Need to Build Their Own Career Journeys.
Creating Connections through Community.
Empowering Organizations to Trust that Their Studies Are in the Hands of Qualified Professionals.
Leading the Way for Workforce Development in Clinical Research.
You can read more ACRP’s mission, values, and membership here: ACRP homepage.
Health Care Compliance Association (HCCA)
Established in 1996, HCCA supports healthcare compliance professionals as part of the overarching mission of SCCE & HCCA, a member-based professional association with more than 19,000 members in over 100 countries.
SCCE & HCCA is dedicated to enabling the lasting success and integrity of organizations worldwide by:
Promoting high standards in compliance and ethics programs,
Nurturing a community of compliance and ethics practitioners, and
Consists of 130 objective, multiple-choice questions, and covers human subjects protection regulations, IRB responsibilities, and institutional responsibilities.
Exam length is three hours long and is a computer-based exam.
No notes or reference materials are allowed while taking the exam.
Certification fee
Testing in the US: $425.00 exam fee
Testing outside the US (internationally): $535.00 exam fee
$110.00 exam fee cost will be waived if international test takers opt for online-remote proctoring
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
Education:
None specified.
Employment:
Two years of full-time, relevant Human Research Protection Program (HRPP) experience, completed within two weeks of the conclusion of the chosen testing period.
Relevant HRPP experience must include:
Managing HRPP policies and procedures
Managing pre-review of IRB materials
Managing review of IRB materials
Managing exempt study review determinations
Managing research protocol approval or reliance process
Below is a table of FDA guidance documents with the following keywords: Institutional Review Board, IRB, and Clinical Investigator (as stated within CIP Exam Reference sheet)
Further, both draft and final guidance documents have been provided for convenience (as the resource list doesn’t clarify this aspect).
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
There are two pathways based on work experience and if a waiver is applicable. You can read about these in detail here: ACRP-CP Certification Eligibility.
Exam domain breakdown
Ethical and Participant Safety Considerations
Standard of care vs. clinical research protocol requirements
Clinical equipoise vs. therapeutic misconception
Content of the key documents ensuring subject protection (e.g., IB, protocol, informed consent documents)
Considerations for vulnerable populations
Past and current ethical issues in clinical research (e.g., diversity)
Risks vs. benefits in the selection of research subjects
Unblinding procedures
Confidentiality and privacy
Elements and process of informed consent/assent
Protocol deviation/violation identification, documentation, and reporting processes
Recruitment and retention plan/strategies
Safety monitoring and reporting
Subject discontinuation criteria/procedures
Conflict of interest in clinical research
Fraud and misconduct
Clinical Research Standards and Guidelines
Stakeholders and regulatory institutions and frameworks in clinical research
Phases of clinical research
Regulatory reporting requirements (e.g., pre- and post-approval, safety)
Standards for handling hazardous goods, materials, and biological samples
Audit and inspection processes (preparation, participation, documentation, and follow-up)
IRB/IEC role, composition, purpose, and reporting requirements
Protocol submission, approval, and amendment processes
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
There are two pathways based on work experience and if a waiver is applicable. You can read about these in detail here: ACRP-CP Certification Eligibility.
Exam domain breakdown
Scientific Concepts and Research Design
Elements of a protocol
Elements of an Investigational Brochure (IB) and/or investigational device use (instructions for use)
Rationale for participant eligibility requirements
Rationale for trial design
Study design characteristics (e.g., double-blind, crossover, randomized))
Study objective(s) and end points/outcomes
Use of comparator or control product in study design
Treatment assignments (e.g., randomization, open label, registries)
Stages of product development
Ethical and Participant Safety Considerations
Adverse events definitions/classification, documentation, and reporting (e.g., SAE, AESI, SUSAR)
Blinding/unblinding procedures
Elements of eligibility required by IRB/IEC
Confidentiality and privacy requirements
Risks and benefits of the safety profile
Elements of the informed consent
Informed consent process requirements
Protection of human subjects (e.g., IRB/IEC requirements, Declaration of Helsinki, participant compensation)
Protocol deviation/violation identification, documentation, and reporting processes
Recruitment and retention plan/strategies
Safety monitoring
Participant discontinuation criteria/procedures
Vulnerable participant populations
Conflicts of interest in clinical research (e.g., financial for PI or staff, family and site participation in trial)
Elements of potential fraud and misconduct
Regulatory Requirements
IRB/IEC reporting requirements and communication
IRB/IEC purpose, role, and composition
Protocol and protocol amendment submission and approval processes
Regulatory authority reporting requirements and communication (e.g., safety, CSR)
Clinical Trial Operations (GCP)
Elements of an effective root cause analysis and corrective and preventive action (CAPA) plan
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
There are two pathways based on work experience and if a waiver is applicable. You can read about these in detail here: ACRP-CP Certification Eligibility.
Exam domain breakdown
Scientific Concepts and Research Design
Elements of a protocol
Elements of an Investigational Brochure (IB) and/or investigational device use
Elements of and rationale for subject eligibility requirements
Rationale for complying with a protocol
Statistical principles related to study design (e.g., sample size, screen fail rate)
Study design characteristics (e.g., double-blind, crossover, randomized)
Study objective(s)
Study endpoints/outcomes
Rationale for using supplemental/rescue/comparator product in study design
Treatment assignments (e.g., randomization, open label, registries)
Ethical and Participant Safety Considerations
Adverse events classification, documentation and reporting
Blinding/unblinding procedures
Components of subject eligibility requirements
Confidentiality and privacy requirements
Elements of the IB related to identifying risks and benefits
Elements of the informed consent form
Informed consent process requirements (e.g., paper, eConsent, assent)
Protection of human subjects including vulnerable subject populations
Protocol deviation/violation identification, documentation, and reporting processes
Subject recruitment and retention plan/strategies (e.g., social media, digital, print)
Safety monitoring and elements of pharmacovigilance and/or product/device vigilance (e.g., CIOMS, IDMC/DSMB, safety databases)
Subject discontinuation criteria/procedures
Subject safety
Conflicts of interest in clinical research
Ethical responsibilities including fraud and misconduct
Product Development and Regulation
Audit and inspection processes (preparation, participation, documentation, and follow-up)
Clinical development process (e.g., preclinical, clinical trial phases, device class)
Clinical trial registries and requirements
Elements of fraud and misconduct
IRB/IEC and other regulatory body reporting requirements
IRB/IEC role, composition, and purpose
Protocol and protocol amendment submission and approval processes
Safety reporting requirements
Significant milestones in the evaluation of efficacy and safety (e.g., interim analysis result, DSMB review)
Clinical Trial Operations (GCPs)
Site staff qualifications for delegation of responsibilities, duties, and training requirements
Elements of effective corrective and preventive action (CAPA) process(es) and plan(s)
Monitoring activities (frequency of visits, data review, and follow-up)
Pre-study/site selection criteria and visit activities
Principal investigator oversight responsibilities
Project feasibility considerations
Roles of various clinical trial entities (e.g., CROs, sponsors, regulatory authority)
Site initiation and close-out activities
Site staff qualifications
Study close-out activities
Study and Site Management
Communication documentation requirements between all study entities
Content of contract and study budget
Equipment and supplies use and maintenance
Investigational product accountability and documentation requirements
Study staff training procedures and documentation requirements
Investigational product characteristics, labeling requirements, and packaging
Investigational product shipment
Investigational product storage
Non-compliance management
Project timelines (e.g., data lock, enrollment period, recruitment/retention)
Purpose of and process(es) for protocol compliance
Sample collection, processing, shipment, and storage requirements
Subject compliance assessment
Subject responsibilities for study participation and visit activities
Vendor management
Data Management and Informatics
Data management activities including data privacy
Elements and purposes of data collection tools (e.g., eCRF, EDC, IWRS blinding)
Essential Documents for the conduct of a clinical trial (e.g., paper/electronic, trial master file)
Record retention, certified copy, and destruction practices and requirements
Source data review (SDR) and source data verification (SDV) purpose and process
Study documentation practices and requirements (Accurate, Legible, Complete, Original, Attributable, Contemporaneous, Consistent, Enduring, Available (ALCOA+))
Consists of 60 multiple choice questions that must be answered within 90 minutes.
The ACRP-MDP exam is referenced to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Guidelines and International Organization for Standardization Guideline (ISO) 14155:2011.
The exam assesses your proficiency in medical devices related to clinical research.
Certification fees
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
To be eligible for this exam, you must have one of the following ACRP certifications:
Consists of 60 multiple choice questions that must be answered within 90 minutes.
The exam is referenced only to the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) Guidelines.
No other regulatory framework is tested, including country-specific regulations (i.e, FDA or EMA).
Certification fees
Exam and application fees differ based on time of year (spring versus fall) and the year itself. It is recommended that you review the ACRP Certification Handbook for the most recent fee schedule.
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
To be eligible for this exam, you must have one of the following ACRP certifications:
HCCA: Certified in Healthcare Research Compliance (CHRC)
Brief overview
The examination will be scored on participantsโ responses to 100 of the 120 multiple-choice questions spread across all subject areas.
Certification fees
Current members (SCCE or HCCA): $350.00
Non-members: $450.00
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
Requirements vary based on job experience and continuing education units (CEUs). These can be reviewed in greater detail within the specific certification’s handbook: CHRC Candidate Handbook.
Exam domain breakdown
You can review the table of the exam content here (which was also highlighted in the summary table at the beginning of this post): Detailed content outline (PDF)
The examination will be scored on participantsโ responses to 100 of the 120 multiple-choice questions spread across all subject areas.
Certification fees
Current members (SCCE or HCCA): $350.00
Non-members: $450.00
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
Requirements vary based on job experience and continuing education units (CEUs). These can be reviewed in greater detail within the specific certification’s handbook: CHC Candidate Handbook.
Exam domain breakdown
You can review the table of the exam content here (which was also highlighted in the summary table at the beginning of this post): Detailed content outline (PDF)
HCCA: Certified in Healthcare Privacy Compliance (CHPC)
Brief overview
The examination will be scored on participantsโ responses to 100 of the 120 multiple-choice questions spread across all subject areas.
Certification fees
Current members (SCCE or HCCA): $350.00
Non-members: $450.00
Eligibility requirements (education and employment)
Requirements vary based on job experience and continuing education units (CEUs). These can be reviewed in greater detail within the specific certification’s handbook: CHPC Candidate Handbook.
Exam domain breakdown
You can review the table of the exam content here (which was also highlighted in the summary table at the beginning of this post): Detailed content outline (PDF)
Modified on March 5, 2026 to remove the “subscribe” option. This blog has been retired and replaced by the S.P.I.R.I.T. newsletter.
Co-Author: Tasha Mohseni
Co-Author: Yefrenia Henriquez Taveras
Good morning, good afternoon, good evening Compliance Rockstars, Clinical Researchers, Ethics Educators, and Investigators from around the world!
We are so excited about sharing the second Show-and-Tell post within a highly educational series!
Before we get started, we wanted to share an important announcement:
This series was originally going to be 12 posts (i.e., a post per month).
However, due to the incredible feedback we received, we will no longer follow this format.
The series will conclude once all aspects of an IRB submission are covered! This may be a post per month (or multiple posts per month).
Your feedback is much appreciated, and we look forward to producing and providing this helpful content!
Before we give into this post:
We want to tell you about our methodology of assessing 16 biomedical IRB protocol templatesfrom various institutions.
Being in the compliance field, we are also passionate about research. More importantly, passionate about doing research ethically and in a reproducible way. We are going to summarize how we analyzed 16 biomedical IRB protocol templates from various institutions for commonalities:
We went to Google and typed in “IRB Templates”.
From here, we only reviewed templates with the following keywords:
“Biomedical”
“Bioscience”
“Medical”
Our initial plan (similar to the past post) was to stop once we browsed through 10 pages. Which we did and were hoping to have 50 records for review.
But…we encountered obstacles:
Some institutions had templates for consent and recruitment, but not for the protocol (perhaps this is an internal document in the electronic IRB submission system)
Some institutions relied on Federal agency templates (which is completely fine, but I said I would do my search on institutions)
Some institutions only had one type of protocol template (i.e., no difference between SBER or biomedical research) – again this is completely fine depending on the nature of the research at your institution
Some institutions required an institutional login to access their templates (hear, hear for additional security!)
Some institutions had protocol templates based on review type (exempt, expedited, vs. full board) – this is interesting to me because I wonder how these institutions have trained their investigators to know which template to use
Some institutions may have had biomedical protocol templates, but we were limited by the keywords we selected
After going through 10 pages of results, we decided to stop once we reviewed 16 institutions’ biomedical protocol templates.
We could have kept going, but we wanted to be consistent with the previous analysis we did in terms of the number of protocol templates reviewed
As we reviewed each template, we gathered the following data points:
A link to their PDF for future reference
Their institution only to avoid duplicate values (once we had 16 unique values – this column was deleted)
Sections within their protocol template
Then, with iterative prompting via ChatGPT-4, the GPT summarized the recurring themes within the protocol templates.
If you would like to review any of our references, please leave us a comment below.
Though we will have references throughout the post from the following agencies, it is recommended that you visit the Federal Guidance Repository to review these resources:
Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) guidance documents
Secretaryโs Advisory Committee on Human Research Protections (SACHRP) recommendations
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents
As a general reminder, you should consult with your institution’s IRB if you have any questions about the resources provided at the end of this post (or the recommendations within this post to ensure it is applicable to your institution). Additionally, check if your institution already provides specific templates that you can use:
Study Leadership and Resources Available
Title
This should hopefully be one of the easiest parts of your biomedical IRB protocol! The title of your protocol should give the IRB reviewer a sense of what your IRB protocol will be about.
Is there a grant associated with your study?
If so, I recommend reviewing sponsor requirements. Some sponsors may require that your protocol title must be the same title as your grant.
Principal Investigator (and Study Team)
The institution must know who is the lead investigator (i.e., the principal investigator (PI)) for the biomedical study. This is typically a faculty or staff member. If the research is student-led, then the student should check with their institution to see if they can be listed as the PI. Some institutions may be fine with this, but require a faculty member to be listed on the protocol as well. The protocol should also list all study team members associated with your study. Whether they are affiliated with your institution or an external collaborator, IRBs want to ensure that everyone has received the proper IRB/human subjects research training.
Institution Team Members
These are team members that are affiliated with your institution.
External Collaborators
These are team members that are not affiliated with your institution. If the collaborator is affiliated with an institution, they will need to reach out to their IRB. The collaborator’s IRB may require that the collaborator submit a study for review. Conversely, the collaborator’s IRB may not considered them engaged in research. You may not know this, but institutions have flexibility in how to apply the regulations.
Stay tuned for an upcoming post that will discuss the reliance process and the single IRBs!
Qualifications to Conduct Research
This section should establish the research team’s expertise and ability to conduct the study ethically and competently. The goal is to demonstrate that the research team is capable, experienced, and well-trained. This provides assurance to the IRB that participants will be protected and the study will be conducted ethically. It should include:
Principal Investigator (PI) and key personnel
Name, title, institutional affiliation, and role in the study.
Description of the PIโs research experience, particularly in the relevant area of study.
Previous experience conducting similar research (e.g., prior clinical trials, publications, or funded projects).
If applicable, any specific experience working with the study population (e.g., vulnerable populations, specific disease conditions).
Training and certifications
Completion of human subjects research training (e.g., CITI Program or NIH ethics training).
If the study involves medical interventions, confirmation of Good Clinical Practice (GCP) training.
Any other relevant compliance training (e.g., HIPAA, conflict of interest, biosafety).
Study team expertise and responsibilities
Description of co-investigators, study coordinators, research nurses, and other key personnel.
Each person’s role in the study and how their background supports the research objectives.
If specialized skills are required (e.g., phlebotomy, radiologic imaging, data analysis), documentation of relevant experience.
Resources Available
This section should detail the institutional and external resources available to ensure the study is feasible and well-supported.
Institutional resources and support
Describe the access to labs, clinical facilities, regulatory offices, and any core research services.
Include confirmation of adequate resources, including funding, personnel, infrastructure, and data management support.
Collaborations (if applicable)
Describe of external partners’ roles and expertise.
Document agreements such as:
Data Use Agreements (DUAs),
Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), and
IRB reliance agreements (for multi-site research)
Study Background and Rationale
Background and Significance
This is also known as:
The study rationale (i.e., purpose) for the proposed research
The study aims and hypothesis
This is where you briefly introduce the purpose of your proposed study. If your research is funded, the study aims should be consistent with your grant. This is also where you would include your research question(s) and hypothesis. You should also provide a summary of research currently available (i.e., publications) to provide justification for the proposed study. I caution you here to avoid any technical terms or jargon. Remember, IRB reviewers aren’t as connected to your project as you are.
Therefore, this section should be written in a way that anyone can understand:
The main idea of the proposed research
Any published research that is related to the proposed research
Any current studies that are related to the proposed research (i.e., the ID number of any active studies related to the proposed research)
This helps IRB reviewers when they are making a determination for your study with respect to risk (i.e., no greater than minimal risk or above minimal risk)
Objectives (Primary and Secondary)
This section defines the specific goals of the study and differentiates between primary and secondary objectives.
Primary objective
This is the main goal of the study and is typically the primary outcome the research is designed to evaluate.
Example: To assess the efficacy of [intervention] in reducing [condition-specific outcome] over [time frame].
Secondary objective(s)
These are additional research questions that may provide supporting data or insights beyond the primary objective.
Example: To determine the effect of [intervention] on secondary markers such as [biomarkers, patient-reported outcomes, or other clinical indicators].
Exploratory Objectives (if applicable):
These are hypotheses that may not be powered for statistical significance but can inform future research.
Example: To explore the relationship between [genetic marker] and treatment response.
Objectives should be expressed as statements of purpose (e.g., to assess, to determine, to compare, to evaluate). Each objective should correspond to specific endpoints and hypotheses tested in the study.
Study Design and Methodology
Study Design and Endpoints (Safety and Efficacy)
This section describes the study framework, endpoints, and how safety and efficacy will be assessed.
Study design
Type of study: Clearly state whether it is an observational, interventional (clinical trial), randomized controlled trial (RCT), cohort study, etc.
Study population: Define the target population, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and recruitment strategy.
Study timeline: Outline key study phases, including screening, intervention, follow-up, and data analysis.
Study endpoints (safety and efficacy)
Endpoints are the measurable outcomes used to assess whether the study objectives are met. They should be directly linked to the studyโs hypotheses.
Primary endpoint:
The main measurement used to evaluate the primary objective.
Example: Reduction in [disease severity score] at [specific time point].
Secondary endpoints:
Additional outcomes that support the primary objective or assess other aspects of intervention effectiveness.
Example: Change in quality-of-life scores, biomarker levels, or patient adherence rates.
Safety endpoints:
Measures related to adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), laboratory test abnormalities, or other safety concerns.
Example: Frequency and severity of treatment-emergent adverse events.
Efficacy endpoints:
Clinical or laboratory-based measures that assess how well the intervention works.
Example: Percentage of patients achieving remission or symptom reduction.
Evaluation of safety and efficacy
Describe how safety and efficacy will be monitored, including data collection at study visits.
Specify when primary and secondary endpoints will be measured (e.g., baseline, 6 months, 12 months).
Comparison of Usual Care and Study Procedures
This section should clearly outline the differences between standard clinical care and the study-specific interventions or procedures. It helps the IRB assess whether the study introduces additional risks beyond routine medical care. If comparing an investigational intervention to standard care, explain why neither is considered superior at the time of study design.
Study Drug, Device, or Investigational Agents
This section describes the investigational product(s) used in the study and their regulatory status:
Provide the name, formulation, mechanism of action, and route of administration (if applicable)
If it is a device, describe its function, intended use, and classification (e.g., diagnostic, therapeutic)
Indicate whether the drug or device has FDA approval or is used under an Investigational New Drug (IND) or Investigational Device Exemption (IDE)
If approved for other indications, state how its use in this study differs from approved uses
Provide preclinical or clinical evidence supporting its use.
For device studies, detail how the device will be used, any required training, and safety precautions
Specify how adverse events, side effects, and safety concerns will be recorded and reported
As the section heading implies, this is where you would describe:
Criteria that makes the individual eligible for the proposed study
Criteria that makes the individual ineligible for the proposed study
Special Populations
If not obvious, you want to provide the scientific rationale for any exclusions of special populations. Special populations under The Common Rule (45 CFR 46) are:
There are other examples of special populations that aren’t covered in the regulations. An individual can be part of a special population if they can be considered vulnerable in the research:
Individuals with impaired decision-making capacity
Economically or educationally disadvantaged persons
Socially disadvantaged
Terminally ill or very sick
Racial or ethnic minorities
Institutionalized persons (e.g., persons in correctional facilities, nursing homes, or mental health facilities)
Dual role relationships (the investigator could be a manager or professor to the employee and/or student participant)
What is “vulnerability” in a research setting?
Below is a summarized table of when vulnerability can occur in a research setting:
Undue Influence
Coercion
Misusing a position of power to influence others to make a decision they would not normally make
A way to force or control someone
Number of Participants
In this section, you would indicate the number of anticipated participants you plan to enroll in your proposed study.
Recruitment Methods
Here, I like to take the “Five W’s” approach:
Who are you recruiting?
Why are you recruiting these potential participants?
What materials will be used for recruitment?
Where will potential participants be recruited?
When will recruitment begin?
Let’s look at these components one piece at a time.
The first question should be a concise statement of your inclusion criteria. When IRB reviewers ask who you will be recruiting, they aren’t looking for specific names. They are looking for the population of interest that will help answer your research question(s).
The second question is aiming towards providing justification for the population of interest. How will this particular population help you answer your research question(s)? What is it about this population that would benefit from the proposed research?
For the third question, IRB reviewers are trying to understand what materials you will be using to recruit participants. Will potential participants be contacted via email? What about social media? Do you plan to do in-person recruitment where you will distribute fliers related to your study?
Typically, the fourth and fifth questions are a combined statement. Something to keep in mind is in-person recruitment. Say you are going to an event where you plan to distribute recruitment fliers for the proposed research. Do you have permission to distribute recruitment fliers for research purposes? You will want to make note of any site permissions you have obtained for the proposed research. The IRB reviewer will likely want to review the site permission documentation as well. Be sure to include any explicit permissions within your submission.
Screening Procedures
Describe the screening process of how you will confirm that potential participants meet inclusion/exclusion criteria. Further, describe what will happen to screening/eligibility data for individuals who are not eligible to participate.
Informed Consent
The consent process should outline key information from the investigator that should be provided to participants. The key information here should facilitate the participantโs comprehension and voluntariness of potential participation in your study. Though there are standard required elements of consent (and additional requirements depending on your study), at minimum, your consent form should include:
The study activities
The duration of time the activities will take
Explanation of risks and benefits
Compensation and any limits to receiving it
Protections and limits of confidentiality
Stay tuned for a blog post describing the consent process in MUCH greater detail!
Study Interventions and Procedures
Procedures Involved
The IRB reviewer should be able to read and understand exactly what you are proposing to do with participants. Letโs pretend you are conducting a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT will evaluate the effectiveness of a novel blood pressure medication in hypertensive patients. This section should include the following details:
Screening & Enrollment: Eligible participants (adults aged 40-65 with hypertension) will be screened and provide informed consent before study procedures begin
Study Visits: Participants will be randomized to receive either the investigational drug (Drug A, 10 mg daily) or a placebo for 12 weeks, with follow-ups at Weeks 4, 8, and 12 to monitor blood pressure, medication adherence, and side effects
Data Collection: Blood pressure readings, symptom diaries, and blood samples (baseline and Week 12) will assess treatment effects and safety
Safety Monitoring: Adverse events will be recorded, and a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) will oversee participant safety
Study Completion: At Week 12, final assessments will be conducted, and participants will receive follow-up care recommendations
For all study procedures, consider the five questions below:
Who on the study team is conducting the specific procedure?
What is the specific procedure?
How will the specific procedure occur?
When will the specific procedure occur?
Where will the specific procedure occur?
It is only important to note how the data collected from the specific procedures will be analyzed.
Study Intervention Discontinuation and Withdrawal of Participants
If a participant requests to withdraw from the study, the investigator should describe:
The scenarios under which they will be able to delete the participantโs data
The scenarios under which they will not be able to delete the participantโs data
For example, in a clinical trial assessing a new diabetes medication, the following scenarios would apply:
Data deletion allowed:
If the participant withdraws before any study procedures (e.g., before baseline assessments), their data can be fully removed
If withdrawal occurs before their data is incorporated into an analyzed dataset, identifiable information can be deleted upon request
Data deletion not allowed:
If the participant withdraws after study interventions have begun, de-identified data collected up to that point may still be used to maintain study integrity
If their data has already been aggregated or published, removal is not feasible
Participants will be informed of these conditions during the informed consent process, ensuring transparency.
Risk/Benefit Assessment and Safety Monitoring
Risk
Remember when we said IRB reviewers look at previous applications similar to the proposed research?
To reiterate, IRB reviewers when they are making a determination for your study with respect to risk (i.e., no greater than minimal risk or above minimal risk). Minimal risk (as defined by 45 CFR 46.102(j)) means that 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. When the proposed research has risks, the investigator must have risk mitigation measures in place.
For example, if you are conducting a study on the psychological impact of childhood trauma, the IRB reviewer will evaluate whether participation could cause emotional distress. They will then check if:
Potential distress was disclosed in the informed consent process.
Risk mitigation measures (e.g., access to mental health resources, optional breaks, or the ability to skip sensitive questions) are in place.
The key is ensuring that the potential benefitsโwhether direct (e.g., therapeutic insights for participants) or indirect (e.g., advancing trauma research)โoutweigh the study’s risks.
Direct Benefit and Indirect Benefit
First, let’s define direct benefit and an indirect benefit:
Direct Benefit
Indirect Benefit
Refers to a positive outcome that directly results from the intervention being studied and is experienced by the research participants themselves
A positive outcome that arises from the research process but is not directly related to the intervention itself, often benefiting society at large or future research, rather than the individual participant in the study
Now, let’s look at a couple of examples:
Direct benefit: In a behavioral intervention testing a new stress relieving technique, a direct benefit would be the participant experiencing symptom relief from applying said technique to their daily routine
Indirect benefit: In a study on a new educational program, an indirect benefit could be the increased awareness of the topic among the wider community due to the research dissemination
It is also important to note that compensation is not considered a benefit.
Provisions to Monitor Participant Safety
Describe the plan to periodically evaluate the data collected regarding both harms and benefits to determine whether participants remain safe. The plan might include establishing a data monitoring committee and a plan for reporting data monitoring committee findings to the IRB and the sponsor. Specify the conditions that trigger an immediate suspension of the research. Specify any state laws related to mandatory reporting.
Biohazard Containment
This section should describe the potential biological hazards associated with the study. It should outline the measures in place to ensure safe handling, containment, and disposal of biohazardous materials.
Key considerations
Specify if the study involves the collection, storage, or processing of human-derived materials (e.g., blood, tissue, saliva, or other bodily fluids)
Indicate if any infectious agents, recombinant DNA, or genetically modified materials are used
Identify the biosafety level (BSL-1, BSL-2, BSL-3, or BSL-4) required for the study
Confirm that research will comply with institutional biosafety protocols and CDC/NIH biosafety guidelines
If recombinant DNA is involved, state whether Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC) approval is required
Outline proper handling, labeling, and storage of biohazardous materials
Specify protective measures, such as personal protective equipment (PPE) and engineering controls (e.g., biosafety cabinets, fume hoods)
Describe approved methods for disposal of biohazardous waste, such as autoclaving, chemical disinfection, or incineration
Confirm compliance with institutional and regulatory waste management policies.
Provide procedures for responding to accidental exposures, spills, or contamination events
Describe how incidents will be reported to biosafety officers, institutional review boards (IRB), and regulatory agencies if necessary
Compensation and Economic Burden Considerations
Compensation for Participation
As mentioned above, compensation is not a benefit. Rather, compensation is a token of appreciation for participating in the research. It is not required to provide compensation. If you do not plan to offer compensation, you would simply include a statement regarding this. If you do plan to offer compensation, ensure the following details are included:
The amount of compensation
The form of compensation (e.g., if it is a gift card, identify where the gift card is to)
The justification for the amount of compensation
When and how compensation will be provided to participants
It is important to note that IRBs are not reviewing the amount of compensation to determine if it’s “enough”. IRBs review compensation amounts to ensure the amount is not coercive. As we know from the section above, coercion can make any individual vulnerable in research.
Compensation for Research-Related Injury
This section should describe whether and how the institution or study sponsor will provide medical care and/or financial compensation for injuries that occur as a direct result of study participation. Consider the following when drafting this section:
Specify whether the institution has a policy regarding treatment or reimbursement for research-related injuries.
If the study is industry-sponsored, clarify whether the sponsor assumes financial responsibility for treatment of study-related injuries. Ensure alignment with the clinical trial agreement (CTA) and institutional policies.
Define what is covered, such as:
Medical treatment for study-related injuries
Whether participants will be reimbursed for costs incurred
Exclusions (e.g., injuries from procedures intended for direct medical benefit)
Specify if the institution or sponsor does not provide financial compensation beyond medical treatment
Ensure that this section aligns with the informed consent document and does not conflict with institutional liability policies
If applicable, include information on how participants can seek assistance in the event of a study-related injury (e.g., contact information for research oversight offices or legal resources).
Economic Burden to Participants
Describe any costs that participants may be responsible for because of participation in the research. If applicable, include whether medical insurance will cover costs.
Privacy, Confidentiality, Data Management, and Future Use of Data
Privacy and Confidentiality
First, let’s define the difference between “privacy” and “confidentiality”:
Privacy
Confidentiality
Refers to the right to control access to ourselves and our personal information
Refers to agreements made between investigators and participants, through the consent process, about if and how researchers will protect participant’s information
Now, this section of a research protocol is vital for ensuring ethical standards are upheld and participant trust is maintained. Below are key elements researchers should address to create a robust plan for protecting participant data:
Outline how participant privacy will be safeguarded throughout the project
For instance, provide private and secure environments for interviews or survey completion
Specify where and how all data typesโpaper, electronic, or multimediaโwill be stored and managed
Data must be stored securely, such as in password-protected databases or locked filing cabinets in restricted-access areas
Highlight additional security measures like data encryption for electronic records
Clearly state who will have access to the data, limiting it to essential study personnel to minimize risk
For studies involving audio or video recordings, specify the retention period and handling procedures
For example, recordings may be deleted after transcription and verification or within six months of collection
During retention, secure storage methods, such as encrypted drives or locked cabinets, should be employed to prevent unauthorized access
If a master list or key is used to link participant identities to data, describe its management
Explain how it will be securely stored separately from study data (e.g., on a different encrypted server or in a separate locked cabinet)
Identify who will have access to the master list and ensure access is limited to essential personnel
Additionally, specify when the master list will be destroyed
State the minimum retention period for study data, typically three years after project completion, as per regulatory requirements
Except for master lists or keys and audio/video recordings, which should be destroyed at the earliest opportunity, all other data should be securely retained until the retention period ends
To maintain confidentiality, include methods for secure destruction, such as shredding paper files or securely wiping electronic data
If data will be shared or moved outside your institution, provide a detailed plan (such as a data use agreement)
Specify the type of data that will be shared, the recipient(s), the circumstances under which sharing will occur, and the timeline for these actions
Include any additional security measures to ensure data confidentiality during transfer
Data Management
For this aspect, the IRB reviewer will look for:
A statement of the types of study data collected
A statement of who has access to study data
A statement of how data will be stored
A statement of when data will be destroyed
A statement of how study data will be de-identified (if applicable)
A statement of how identifiable study data will be managed
Stay tuned for a future blog post regarding methods on how to de-identify your study data!
Future Use of Data
This section requires explanation only if you plan to share data outside of your institution. The investigator should provide a plan for any data movement or sharing outside of their institution. This section should also specify what data will be provided, to whom, under what circumstances, and when. This should also be disclosed in the consent form.
Protected Health Information (PHI), HIPAA Compliance, and HIPAA Authorization Waiver
This section should include:
A description of the creation, use, and/or disclosure of protected health information (PHI),
A statement whether HIPAA authorization will be obtained from all or some participants or a description of what alternatives will be used,
List everyone who will have access to PHI (including IRB, sponsors, FDA, data safety monitoring boards, and others),
A list of what PHI will be collected, used, and/or disclosed including the source(s), and
Why PHI obtained for this research are the minimum information needed to meet the research objectives
Additionally, describe the plan to protect and store PHI from improper use and disclosure. It should also specify and justify the earliest opportunity to destroy PHI and how it will be destroyed. If PHI will not be destroyed, provide a justification.
You will also need to explain how the use or disclosure of PHI involves no more than minimal risk to the privacy of individuals. It should also state why the research could not be practicably conducted without access to and use of PHI.
or
If the study qualifies for a waiver of HIPAA authorization, provide information explaining why the research meets the waiver criteria at 45CFR164.512(i)(2)(ii). Include the following
If you are requesting a waiver for the entire project (authorization will not be sought from participants) or recruitment only (identify eligible participants who then sign an authorization),
Whether the waiver will adversely affect the privacy rights of the participant,
An explanation as to why the research could not be practicably carried out without the waiver, and
An explanation that the research could not practicably be conducted without access to and use of protected health information
Sharing of Study Results and Incidental Findings with Participants
Describe whether results will be shared with participants or others (e.g., the participantsโ primary care physicians) and if so, describe how the results will be shared. Types of results include:
Study results
Individual participant results e.g., results of investigational diagnostic tests, genetic tests, or incidental findings
Study Timeline and Locations
Study Duration and Timeline
Describe the expected number and duration of contacts/meetings/procedures. In addition to the time commitment for participants and include an approximate end date of the study (including data analysis). Include a diagram/table/graph if appropriate. Outline if participation increases the duration of clinical care.
Study Setting and Locations (Including International Research)
Describe all sites/locations where your research team will conduct the research (e.g., where recruiting participants, research procedures will be performed, etc.), including any external sites conducting analytical procedures with project data. Please note any affiliated sites taking part in the research (e.g., sites with an existing reliance agreement). If you will be receiving/sending data to and from another institution, indicate which institution.
If you will also be conducting research at or with international sites, assess the relevance of the research to the region/country and the local context that affects the research, such as cultural norms. Explain the research teamsโ qualifications/expertise for conducting research in the locale(s). Describe the plan for monitoring the international components of the research. Additionally, explain any site requirements, laws relevant to the research (e.g. GDPR, PIPL), or state department warnings regarding travel to the international location(s).
Multi-Site Research Considerations
This section should describe considerations for research conducted across multiple sites, ensuring consistency in study implementation and compliance with ethical and regulatory standards.
Key considerations
Indicate whether each site will seek separate IRB approval or rely on a single IRB (sIRB) under NIH or Common Rule mandates
Describe how protocol consistency will be maintained across all sites, including investigator training and adherence to standardized procedures
Explain how data will be collected, stored, and transmitted securely across sites, ensuring compliance with HIPAA or international data privacy regulations
Outline mechanisms for reporting adverse events, protocol deviations, and updates to the lead institution and IRB
Coordinating Center Research
This section applies if the study is managed through a coordinating center responsible for protocol oversight, data management, or regulatory compliance.
Key considerations
Define responsibilities such as centralized data collection, regulatory submissions, monitoring, and reporting
Explain how the coordinating center will interact with study sites, ensuring protocol compliance and consistency
Describe how monitoring visits, audits, and data verification will be conducted
Specify how safety data, protocol deviations, and regulatory reports will be handled across sites
Analysis and Statistical Considerations
Data Analysis Plan and Statistical Considerations
This section should provide an overview of the statistical methods used to analyze the study data:
Indicate whether interim analyses will be conducted and any predefined stopping rules
Define how endpoints will be analyzed, including primary efficacy and safety measures
Describe the statistical power analysis used to determine the study sample size
Specify statistical tests (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA, regression modeling) and any planned subgroup analyses
Explain how missing or incomplete data will be addressed (e.g., imputation techniques)
Study Outcomes and Endpoints
This section should detail the primary and secondary outcomes measured in the study:
Define the main outcome(s) that the study is designed to assess, ensuring alignment with the primary study objective
Describe additional measures that support the studyโs findings or provide further insights
Outline when data for each outcome will be collected (e.g., baseline, follow-up visits)
Specify if outcomes are based on objective assessments (e.g., biomarkers, imaging) or subjective reports (e.g., patient-reported outcomes)
Ensure endpoints reflect clinically meaningful improvements beyond just statistical significance
We hope you found the second post of this blog-series helpful!