Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Views, and Perceptions of the Roles and Functions of Research Ethics Committees: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey.

Abstract

Background: This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols' evaluation time frames. It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms.

Results: The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members. The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusion: Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.