A Case-Study of the Resources and Functioning of Two Research Ethics Committees in Western India

Institutional review boards in Saudi Arabia: the first survey-based report on their functions and operations

BACKGROUND

Institutional review boards (IRBs) are formally designated to review, approve, and monitor biomedical research. They are responsible for ensuring that researchers comply with the ethical guidelines concerning human research participants. Given that IRBs might face different obstacles that cause delays in their processes or conflicts with investigators, this study aims to report the functions, roles, resources, and review process of IRBs in Saudi Arabia.

METHOD

This was a cross-sectional self-reported survey conducted from March 2021 to March 2022. The survey was sent to 53 IRB chairpersons and the administration directors (or secretary) across the country through email after receiving verbal consent. The validated survey consisted of eight aspects: (a) organizational aspects, (b) membership and educational training, (c) submission arrangements and materials, (d) minutes, (e) review procedures, (f) communicating a decision, (g) continuing review, and (h) research ethics committee (REC) resources. A total of 200 points indicated optimal IRB functions.

RESULTS

Twenty-six IRBs across Saudi Arabia responded to the survey. Overall, the IRBs in this study scored a total of 150/200 of the points on the self-assessment tool. Relatively newer IRBs (established less than ten years ago) conducted meetings at least once in a month, had annual funding, had more balanced gender representation, tended to score higher than older IRBs. The organizational aspect score was the lowest among all items in the survey (14.3 score difference, p-value < 0.01). The average turnaround time for expedited research from proposal submission to final decision was 7 days, while it was 20.5 days for the full committee review.

CONCLUSION

Saudi IRBs performed generally well. However, there is room for focused improvement with respect to extra resources and organizational issues that require closer evaluation and guidance from the regulatory bodies.

Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version

BACKGROUND

Using an effective method for evaluating Institutional Review Board (IRB) performance is essential for ensuring an IRB's effectiveness, efficiency, and compliance with applicable human research standards and organizational policies. Currently, no empirical research has yet been published in China evaluating IRB performance measures by the use of a standardized tool. This study was therefore conducted to develop a Chinese version of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool (IRB-RAT), assess the psychometric properties of the Chinese version (IRB-RAT-CV), and validate the tool for use in China.

METHODS

In this cultural adaptation, cross-sectional validation study, the IRB-RAT-CV was developed through a back-translation process and then distributed to 587 IRB staff members and researchers in medical institutions and schools in Hunan Province that review biomedical and social-behavioral research. Data from the 470 valid questionnaires collected from participants was used to evaluate the reliability, content validity, and construct validity of the IRB-RAT-CV.

RESULTS

Participants' ratings of their ideal and actual IRB as measured by the IRB-RAT-CV achieved Cronbach's alpha 0.989 and 0.992, Spearman-Brown coefficient 0.964 and 0.968, and item-total correlation values ranging from 0.631 to 0.886 and 0.743 to 0.910, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The IRB-RAT-CV is a linguistically and culturally applicable tool for assessing the quality of IRBs in China.

Challenges in the Ethical Review of Clinical and Biomedical Research in Malaysia: A Mixed Methods Study

Empirical evidence of the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research in Malaysia is limited. We have conducted a convergent mixed methods research, which comprises an online survey and semistructured interviews to examine the challenges in the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research. Data collected reveal that the ethics review process is inconsistent, duplicate, and inadequate. The results indicate a strong need for a centralized ethical review mechanism and a national system for mutual recognition of ethics reviews to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ethics review system in Malaysia. A joint research ethics committee review between Malaysia and sponsoring countries for multinational research should also be encouraged as it could address the concerns of the lack of expertise and training.

What empirical research has been undertaken on the ethics of clinical research in India? A systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis

INTRODUCTION

The post-2005 rise in clinical trials and clinical research conducted in India was accompanied by frequent reports of unethical practices, leading to a series of regulatory changes. We conducted a systematic scoping review to obtain an overview of empirical research pertaining to the ethics of clinical trials/research in India.

METHODS

Our search strategy combined terms related to ethics/bioethics, informed consent, clinical trials/research and India, across nine databases, up to November 2019. Peer-reviewed research exploring ethical aspects of clinical trials/research in India with any stakeholder groups was included. We developed an evidence map, undertook a narrative synthesis and identified research gaps. A consultation exercise with stakeholders in India helped contextualise the review and identify additional research priorities.

RESULTS

Titles/Abstracts of 9699 articles were screened, full text of 282 obtained and 80 were included. Research on the ethics of clinical trials/research covered a wide range of topics, often conducted with little to no funding. Studies predominantly examined what lay (patients/public) and professional participants (eg, healthcare staff/students/faculty) know about topics such as research ethics or understand from the information given to obtain their consent for research participation. Easily accessible groups, namely ethics committee members and healthcare students were frequently researched. Research gaps included developing a better understanding of the recruitment-informed consent process, including the doctor-patient interaction, in multiple contexts and exploring issues of equity and justice in clinical trials/research.

CONCLUSION

The review demonstrates that while a wide range of topics have been studied in India, the focus is largely on assessing knowledge levels across different population groups. This is a useful starting point, but fundamental questions remain unanswered about informed consent processes and broader issues of inequity that pervade the clinical trials/research landscape. A priority-setting exercise and appropriate funding mechanisms to support researchers in India would help improve the clinical trials/research ecosystem.

Assessing Research Ethics Committees in Myanmar: Results of a Self-Assessment Tool

Background

Human subject research has increased in Myanmar since 2010 and accordingly, the establishment of research ethics committees (RECs) have increased to review these research studies. However, characteristics that reflect the operations of RECs in Myanmar have not been assessed.

Objectives

To assess the structures and processes of RECs at Medical Institutions in Myanmar.

Methods

We used a self-assessment tool for RECs operating in low and middle-income countries. This tool consists of the following ten domains: organizational aspects, membership and ethics training, submission arrangements and materials, meeting minutes, policies referring to review procedures, review of specific protocol and informed consent items, communication a decision, continuing review, REC resources, and institutional commitment. We distributed this self-administered questionnaire to RECs from 15 Medical Institutions in Myanmar and one representative from each REC completed this questionnaire and returned it anonymously. We used descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistics to analyse the data.

Results

Out of maximum 200 points, the total mean score for Myanmar Medical Institutions was 112.6 ± 12.77, which is lower compared to the aggregate mean score of 137.4 ± 35.8 obtained from RECs in other countries. Domains in which the average percentage score was less than 60% included organizational commitment, membership and ethics training, continuing review and REC resources. Many RECs have a diverse membership and appropriate gender balance but, lacked essential policies.

Conclusion

The results show that for Myanmar RECs there is significant room for improvement in their "structures and processes" as well as the extent of institutionl commitment. The self-assessment tool proved to be valuable method to assess the quality of RECs.

Overall Assessment of Human Research and Ethics Committees in the United Arab Emirates

Growing demand for human health research in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) has prompted the need to develop a robust research ethics oversight. Examination of the structure, function, and practices of the human research ethics committees (HRECs), followed by evaluation of standards for measuring research output, was conducted. Results indicate that among the HRECs, 90% followed International Council for Harmonization-Good Clinical Practice guidelines, 66.6% have been in operation for more than 5 years, 95% reviewed proposals within 8 weeks, and 56% reviewed for scientific merit apart from ethics. However, systems to recognize accomplishments of researchers, funding transparency, and adverse event reporting were deployed in less than 30% of all HRECs. Research was incorporated into the vision and mission statements of many (65%) organizations. Research publications, collaborations, and recognitions were used to measure research output and report key performance indicators. In spite, resources to generate research output such as dedicated budget (20%), support staff (20%), and continuous training and mentoring program for medical residents (15%) and HREC members (25%) were somehow lacking. HREC structure and operations in the UAE are similar to other regions of the world. Systems to conduct research and report outcomes are defined in the UAE. Regulatory legislation and allocation of resources to support the clinical research enterprise will not only help to meet growing demand for clinical trials but also transform the quality of patient care in the UAE. It is anticipated that the results of this study will benefit investigators, regulators, pharmaceutical sponsors, and the policy makers in the region.