Oak Hammock Research Committee

November 15/06 Review Cycle


Navigation (click here to reach each section):


Please click the links below to view the submissions.  Our goal is to return all feeback, via e-mail, to Michael Marsiske by close-of-business, 11/22/2006.
.

Protocols for review


(No protocols are currently recruiting at Oak Hammock).

Reviewer comment instructions

For each protocol you have reviewed, please include the following categories in your response.  (For those who would prefer to type this into a Word Document, and send it as an attachment, it is available here.  Please note that you would send one page for each protocol that you review)

1.  Investigator:  John Smith and Jane Doe
2.  Approval status:  Approve (or "Disapprove" or "Hold for Further Discussion")
3.  Comments for committee (will only be seen by committee):
4.  Comments for investigators (will be seen by committee as well):
5.  Ranking:  (If you have approved 5 applications, for example, please rank the applications from "1" [highest priority] to "5" [lowest priority]).


Review criteria

As a reminder, we have not set formal review criteria for this process.  Among the criteria we have discussed that would lead to a higher ranking are:

a.  satisfactory approvals by UF IRB
b.  PI is a UF faculty member (students have lower priority, even if a faculty mentor is listed)
c.  Judge's independent impression that research will not cause harm or discomfort, and will be well tolerated by Oak Hammock residents (this is subjective)
d.  Lower use of person resources at Oak Hammock**
e.  Note:  Protocols requesting use of assisted living or nursing home should not be reviewed until after a face-to-face meeting including the committee, the investigator(s) and Oak Hammock administrators

** d. refers to an informal calculus, where we will tend to prefer studies that will enroll fewer participants, have shorter sessions with those participants, and require fewer hours of involvement.  For similar reasons, we will prefer one-shot cross-sectional studies over more extensive longitudinal or intervention studies, that will require participants to keep returning to the study.  Examples:
  • Study one seeks to recruit 50 participants, each to be measured in two one-hour sessions.  Thus, the load is (50 persons) x (2 sessions) x (1 hour) = 100 person hours
  • Study two seeks to recruit 5 participants, each of whom will complete 120 daily diaries, for 30 minutes a day.  Thus, the load is (5 persons) x (120 sessions) x (0.5 hours) = 300 person hours

Roughly applied, this calculus would lead us to prefer study one over study two.  However, it is important to remember that study two will only involve five participants.  Although study two is intensive, the fact that most Oak Hammock residents will be unaffected by it is probably an obviating factor.