Exploring Researchers' Perspectives on Institutional Review Boards Functions in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Utilizing the IRB-RAT Tool.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2025-02-15 DOI:10.1186/s12910-025-01179-4
Areej AlFattani, Asma AlShahrani, Norah AlBedah, Ammar Alkawi, Amani AlMeharish, Yasmin Altwaijri, Abeer Omar, M Zuheir AlKawi, Asim Khogeer
{"title":"Exploring Researchers' Perspectives on Institutional Review Boards Functions in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Utilizing the IRB-RAT Tool.","authors":"Areej AlFattani, Asma AlShahrani, Norah AlBedah, Ammar Alkawi, Amani AlMeharish, Yasmin Altwaijri, Abeer Omar, M Zuheir AlKawi, Asim Khogeer","doi":"10.1186/s12910-025-01179-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The ethics committee has the responsibility to comply with the rules and guidelines regarding oversight of all human research activities, particularly when the research study involves vulnerable people. It also has the role of educating researchers on ethical issues, scientific truthfulness, preventing misconduct and conflicts of interest. In our study we evaluate and benchmark the function of the local ethical committees across the country from the researchers point-of-view.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We employed an online IRB-RAT survey to measure perspectives of investigators towards IRB functions dealing with fairness issues, services, bias, and competences and upholding the rights of the human participants. Two responses were recorded: first shows how important an IRB function is for the investigator in his work, second shows how researchers rate their IRBs in being descriptive in that specific function. The difference of these two scores represent the outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We had 179 participants, 166(94%) researchers/research coordinators, and 13(7.2%) IRB members, 94 (53%) participants had been working in the research field for more than 11 years, and the majority 163(90%) revealed that they had IRB contact. The largest gap between actual rating and ideal was observed for the item \"An IRB that requires that its chair be an experienced investigator\" with a score difference of 1.53. In contrast, the smallest score difference was for the item \"Considering the protection of human participants,\" which had a score of 0.51.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>According's to researchers point of view; IRBs respect researchers, view human protections as a primary role, do not allow personal bias, maintain accurate records and take timely action whenever misconduct is reported. Further collaborations are needed to enhance IRB performance and to engage researchers in more productive communication with their IRBs.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":"26 1","pages":"26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11829434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-025-01179-4","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: The ethics committee has the responsibility to comply with the rules and guidelines regarding oversight of all human research activities, particularly when the research study involves vulnerable people. It also has the role of educating researchers on ethical issues, scientific truthfulness, preventing misconduct and conflicts of interest. In our study we evaluate and benchmark the function of the local ethical committees across the country from the researchers point-of-view.

Methods: We employed an online IRB-RAT survey to measure perspectives of investigators towards IRB functions dealing with fairness issues, services, bias, and competences and upholding the rights of the human participants. Two responses were recorded: first shows how important an IRB function is for the investigator in his work, second shows how researchers rate their IRBs in being descriptive in that specific function. The difference of these two scores represent the outcome.

Results: We had 179 participants, 166(94%) researchers/research coordinators, and 13(7.2%) IRB members, 94 (53%) participants had been working in the research field for more than 11 years, and the majority 163(90%) revealed that they had IRB contact. The largest gap between actual rating and ideal was observed for the item "An IRB that requires that its chair be an experienced investigator" with a score difference of 1.53. In contrast, the smallest score difference was for the item "Considering the protection of human participants," which had a score of 0.51.

Conclusion: According's to researchers point of view; IRBs respect researchers, view human protections as a primary role, do not allow personal bias, maintain accurate records and take timely action whenever misconduct is reported. Further collaborations are needed to enhance IRB performance and to engage researchers in more productive communication with their IRBs.

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
背景:伦理委员会有责任遵守有关监督所有人类研究活动的规定和准则,尤其是当研究涉及易受伤害的人群时。它还负责对研究人员进行伦理问题、科学真实性、防止不当行为和利益冲突方面的教育。在我们的研究中,我们从研究人员的角度对全国各地地方伦理委员会的职能进行了评估和基准测试:我们采用了一项在线 IRB-RAT 调查来衡量研究人员对 IRB 在处理公平性问题、服务、偏见和能力以及维护人类参与者权利等方面的职能的看法。调查记录了两个回答:第一个回答显示了 IRB 的某项职能对研究人员工作的重要性,第二个回答显示了研究人员对其 IRB 在描述该特定职能方面的评价。这两个分数的差值代表结果:我们有 179 位参与者,其中 166 位(94%)是研究人员/研究协调员,13 位(7.2%)是 IRB 成员,94 位(53%)参与者在研究领域工作超过 11 年,大多数 163 位(90%)参与者表示他们与 IRB 有接触。实际评分与理想评分差距最大的项目是 "要求其主席为经验丰富的研究人员的 IRB",分差为 1.53。相比之下,"考虑保护人类参与者 "一项的分差最小,为 0.51 分:从研究人员的角度来看,IRB 尊重研究人员,将保护人类作为首要职责,不允许个人偏见,保持准确记录,并在收到不当行为报告时及时采取行动。需要进一步合作,以提高 IRB 的绩效,并让研究人员与其 IRB 进行更富有成效的沟通。
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
Exploring Researchers' Perspectives on Institutional Review Boards Functions in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Utilizing the IRB-RAT Tool. Ethical issues in unprofessional behavior of residents who dispute dismissal: ten year analysis of case law in hospital-based specialties. Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute. Developing a master of science in health research ethics program in Northern Nigeria: a needs assessment. Researcher views on returning results from multi-omics data to research participants: insights from The Molecular Transducers of Physical Activity Consortium (MoTrPAC) Study.
×
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