Behind the scenes of research ethics committee oversight: a qualitative research study with committee chairs in the Middle East and North Africa region.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-08-08 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01083-3
Catherine El Ashkar, Rima Nakkash, Amal Matar, Jihad Makhoul
{"title":"Behind the scenes of research ethics committee oversight: a qualitative research study with committee chairs in the Middle East and North Africa region.","authors":"Catherine El Ashkar, Rima Nakkash, Amal Matar, Jihad Makhoul","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01083-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Research cites shortcomings and challenges facing research ethics committees in many regions across the world including Arab countries. This paper presents findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with research ethics committee (REC) chairs to explore their views on the challenges they face in their work with the oversight of research involving human populations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Virtual in-depth interviews were conducted with chairs (n = 11) from both biomedical and/or social-behavioral research ethics committees in six countries, transcribed, coded and subject to thematic analysis for recurring themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two sets of recurring themes impede the work of the committees and pose concerns for the quality of the research applications: (1) procedures and committee level challenges such as heavy workload, variations in member qualification, impeding bureaucratic procedures, member overwork, and intersecting socio-cultural values in the review process; (2) inconsistencies in the researchers' competence in both applied research ethics and research methodology as revealed by their applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Narratives of REC chairs are important to shed light on experiences and issues that are not captured in surveys, adding to the body of knowledge with implications for the region, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in other parts of the world. International research collaborations could benefit from the findings.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11308332/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01083-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Research cites shortcomings and challenges facing research ethics committees in many regions across the world including Arab countries. This paper presents findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with research ethics committee (REC) chairs to explore their views on the challenges they face in their work with the oversight of research involving human populations.

Methods: Virtual in-depth interviews were conducted with chairs (n = 11) from both biomedical and/or social-behavioral research ethics committees in six countries, transcribed, coded and subject to thematic analysis for recurring themes.

Results: Two sets of recurring themes impede the work of the committees and pose concerns for the quality of the research applications: (1) procedures and committee level challenges such as heavy workload, variations in member qualification, impeding bureaucratic procedures, member overwork, and intersecting socio-cultural values in the review process; (2) inconsistencies in the researchers' competence in both applied research ethics and research methodology as revealed by their applications.

Conclusions: Narratives of REC chairs are important to shed light on experiences and issues that are not captured in surveys, adding to the body of knowledge with implications for the region, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in other parts of the world. International research collaborations could benefit from the findings.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
研究伦理委员会监督的幕后:对中东和北非地区委员会主席的定性研究。
背景:研究表明,包括阿拉伯国家在内的世界许多地区的研究伦理委员会都存在不足并面临挑战。本文介绍了对研究伦理委员会(REC)主席进行定性深入访谈的结果,以探讨他们对在监督涉及人类群体的研究工作中所面临的挑战的看法:对六个国家的生物医学和/或社会行为研究伦理委员会的主席(n = 11)进行了虚拟深入访谈,对访谈内容进行了转录和编码,并对重复出现的主题进行了专题分析:有两组重复出现的主题阻碍了委员会的工作,并对研究申请的质量造成了担忧:(1) 程序和委员会层面的挑战,如繁重的工作量、成员资质的差异、官僚程序的阻碍、成员过度劳累以及审查过程中相互交织的社会文化价值观;(2) 研究人员在应用研究伦理和研究方法方面的能力不一致,这一点从他们的申请中可以看出:区域经济共同体(REC)主席的叙述非常重要,可以揭示调查中没有反映的经验和问题,丰富知识体系,对该地区和世界其他地区的中低收入国家(LMICs)产生影响。国际研究合作可从调查结果中受益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
From ontological to relational: A scoping review of conceptions of dignity invoked in deliberations on medically assisted death Putting patients first: when home-based care staff prioritise loyalty to patients above the system and themselves. An ethnographic study Encompassing trust in medical AI from the perspective of medical students: a quantitative comparative study. Impact of the life-sustaining treatment decision act on organ donation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in South Korea: a multi-centre retrospective study. Opportunities and challenges of a dynamic consent-based application: personalized options for personal health data sharing and utilization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1