Background/Purpose: Despite heightened attention and scrutiny by funding agencies, government regulators, the research community, and the public, research ethics education has not been a priority in many healthcare institutions. Further, researchers often lack a clear understanding of the role and function of an Institutional Review Board (IRB) and few have received formal education or training related to responsible research conduct. Thus, the purposes of this study were to: 1) assess the practical knowledge of staff related to specific IRB guidelines; 2) develop and offer education to these individuals; and 3) measure the long-term impact of the educational intervention.

Method: Using a pre-post descriptive design, a questionnaire related to selected IRB guidelines was hosted on the hospital’s internal website. A purposive sample of professional staff including, nurses, physicians, pharmacists, therapists, principal/co-investigators, research assistants, and study coordinators was invited to participate. Subjects were solicited by electronic email notification with a hyperlink to the online survey. Participants were asked six fundamental IRB-related questions and, immediately following submission of their answers, were given the correct responses to reinforce the information. Every two weeks for six months thereafter, a “10 Second IRB Update” consisting of a brief statement concerning a specific IRB guideline was emailed to each subject. After 6 months, the initial survey was repeated along with 2 “bonus” questions that were not on the original questionnaire but that contained information imparted over the 6 months. A dependent t-test evaluated differences between participants’ knowledge pre and post education. Bonus questions were analyzed separately.

Findings: Of the 643 initially contacted, 145 completed the survey for a response rate of 23%. On the post-test, 74 participated for a return rate of 12%, but only 50 were matched pairs from the pre-test. Of those, the highest return was from attending physicians (N=17) followed by nurses (N=12) and “others” (N=10). By group, scores ranged from 44.44% - 61.13% correct pre (mean = 52.65%) and 41.67% - 66.74% correct post (mean = 57.03%). Individual scores ranged from 0 – 100%. No statistically significant differences were seen pre and post either overall or by group. Bonus question mean scores ranged from 50% to 76.92% correct with individual scores of 0 – 100%. Despite no statistical significance, anecdotally, there was a tremendous response to the email education from staff who stated the updates were very helpful, informative, and a great teaching tool. Further, after completion of the study, the IRB asked the PI to continue the every two week education as they had received a great deal of positive feedback about the project.

Implications: Given the small sample size, it was not surprising that statistical significance was not found following the educational initiative. It was remarkable, however, that scores did not show greater improvement after 6 months of regular reinforcement of relevant IRB issues, especially since many of the respondents were active researchers having experience with the IRB process. Findings emphasize the need to continue to explore ways to educate professional staff and researchers regarding research ethics and IRB policies and procedures to promote greater knowledge about these important issues and to streamline the IRB submission and review process.