Use of Template Documents with Guidance to Improve the Quality of Human Subjects Research Protocol Submissions to a Thai Research Ethics Committee.

IF 1.7 4区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics Pub Date : 2021-12-01 Epub Date: 2021-06-14 DOI:10.1177/15562646211025470
Thana Khawcharoenporn, Wilaiwan Chimkhong, Varanya Roestpricha
{"title":"Use of Template Documents with Guidance to Improve the Quality of Human Subjects Research Protocol Submissions to a Thai Research Ethics Committee.","authors":"Thana Khawcharoenporn,&nbsp;Wilaiwan Chimkhong,&nbsp;Varanya Roestpricha","doi":"10.1177/15562646211025470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A pre-post study was conducted to evaluate the utility of template documents specifically created to assist research protocol submissions to a Thai research ethics committee (REC). A total of 172 protocols during the 2014-2016 preintervention period were matched to 172 protocols during the 2017-2019 postintervention period by type of principal investigator and REC review category. The intervention was associated with a significant reduction in initial REC requirement deficiencies in the information sheet and informed consent form, resubmission turn-around time by the principal investigator, and time form protocol submission to REC approval. The most significant postintervention improvements were for information about the consent process and listed risks of study participation. In this study, utilization of a structured protocol template with guidance instructions was associated with measurable improvement in the quality of research protocol submissions and REC review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":50211,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","volume":"16 5","pages":"501-513"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/15562646211025470","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15562646211025470","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/6/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A pre-post study was conducted to evaluate the utility of template documents specifically created to assist research protocol submissions to a Thai research ethics committee (REC). A total of 172 protocols during the 2014-2016 preintervention period were matched to 172 protocols during the 2017-2019 postintervention period by type of principal investigator and REC review category. The intervention was associated with a significant reduction in initial REC requirement deficiencies in the information sheet and informed consent form, resubmission turn-around time by the principal investigator, and time form protocol submission to REC approval. The most significant postintervention improvements were for information about the consent process and listed risks of study participation. In this study, utilization of a structured protocol template with guidance instructions was associated with measurable improvement in the quality of research protocol submissions and REC review process.

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
使用模板文件与指导提高人类受试者研究方案提交给泰国研究伦理委员会的质量。
进行了一项前后研究,以评估专门为协助向泰国研究伦理委员会(REC)提交研究方案而创建的模板文件的效用。根据主要研究者类型和REC审查类别,将2014-2016年干预前期间的172项方案与2017-2019年干预后期间的172项方案进行匹配。干预与信息表和知情同意书中初始REC要求缺陷的显著减少、主要研究者重新提交的周转时间以及方案提交到REC批准的时间有关。干预后最显著的改进是关于同意过程的信息和参与研究的风险列表。在本研究中,使用带有指导说明的结构化方案模板与研究方案提交和REC审查过程质量的可测量改善相关。
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
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
30
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics (JERHRE) is the only journal in the field of human research ethics dedicated exclusively to empirical research. Empirical knowledge translates ethical principles into procedures appropriate to specific cultures, contexts, and research topics. The journal''s distinguished editorial and advisory board brings a range of expertise and international perspective to provide high-quality double-blind peer-reviewed original articles.
期刊最新文献
Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics. Understanding of Key Considerations for Effective Community Engagement in Genetics and Genomics Research: A Qualitative Study of the Perspectives of Research Ethics Committee Members and National Research Regulators in a low Resource Setting. Vulnerable Research Participant Policies at U.S. Academic Institutions. Considerations for the Design of Informed Consent in Digital Health Research: Participant Perspectives. Public Perspectives on Consent for and Governance of Biobanking in Japan.
×
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