调查印度研究伦理委员会对 COVID-19 大流行病的反应。

IF 0.9 3区 哲学 Q3 ETHICS Developing World Bioethics Pub Date : 2023-08-04 DOI:10.1111/dewb.12417
Yashashri C. Shetty, Sudha Ramalingam, Paresh Koli, Karthikeyan Shanmugam, Rajmohan Seetharaman
{"title":"调查印度研究伦理委员会对 COVID-19 大流行病的反应。","authors":"Yashashri C. Shetty,&nbsp;Sudha Ramalingam,&nbsp;Paresh Koli,&nbsp;Karthikeyan Shanmugam,&nbsp;Rajmohan Seetharaman","doi":"10.1111/dewb.12417","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n <p>Research ethics committees (RECs) have played a crucial role in expediting the review of research protocols amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve their performance and identify areas of enhancement, a multicentric study was conducted in India by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP). The study aimed to evaluate the preparedness of Indian RECs during the COVID-19 outbreak while conducting protocol reviews and comprehend the challenges they encountered. After obtaining ethics committee approval, a cross-sectional observational study was conducted using two validated questionnaires, one for REC member secretaries/chairpersons and another for REC members. The questionnaires consisted of 13 multiple-choice questions, 10 yes or no questions, and 2 open-ended questions each. The study was distributed to multiple RECs. A total of 109/200 participants, including 13 REC member secretaries, 12 chairpersons and 84 REC members from a total of 34 REC's, consented to participate in the study. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 23/25 (92%) of the RECs conducted online meetings. The most common challenges faced by RECs included risk-benefit analysis (12/25 RECs), review of informed consent (12/25 RECs), and protocols involving vulnerable populations (10/25 RECs). 65% of the REC members reported the need for ethics review training, and 66/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that RECs require training in COVID-19 protocol review. Additionally, 62/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that central/joint RECs should review multicenter COVID-19 protocols. RECs in India encountered difficulties while reviewing risk-benefit analyses, informed consent documents (ICDs), and COVID-19 protocols and they suggested providing training on these topics.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":50590,"journal":{"name":"Developing World Bioethics","volume":"24 3","pages":"243-253"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Surveying the Indian research ethics committee response to the COVID-19 pandemic\",\"authors\":\"Yashashri C. Shetty,&nbsp;Sudha Ramalingam,&nbsp;Paresh Koli,&nbsp;Karthikeyan Shanmugam,&nbsp;Rajmohan Seetharaman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/dewb.12417\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n <p>Research ethics committees (RECs) have played a crucial role in expediting the review of research protocols amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve their performance and identify areas of enhancement, a multicentric study was conducted in India by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP). The study aimed to evaluate the preparedness of Indian RECs during the COVID-19 outbreak while conducting protocol reviews and comprehend the challenges they encountered. After obtaining ethics committee approval, a cross-sectional observational study was conducted using two validated questionnaires, one for REC member secretaries/chairpersons and another for REC members. The questionnaires consisted of 13 multiple-choice questions, 10 yes or no questions, and 2 open-ended questions each. The study was distributed to multiple RECs. A total of 109/200 participants, including 13 REC member secretaries, 12 chairpersons and 84 REC members from a total of 34 REC's, consented to participate in the study. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 23/25 (92%) of the RECs conducted online meetings. The most common challenges faced by RECs included risk-benefit analysis (12/25 RECs), review of informed consent (12/25 RECs), and protocols involving vulnerable populations (10/25 RECs). 65% of the REC members reported the need for ethics review training, and 66/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that RECs require training in COVID-19 protocol review. Additionally, 62/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that central/joint RECs should review multicenter COVID-19 protocols. RECs in India encountered difficulties while reviewing risk-benefit analyses, informed consent documents (ICDs), and COVID-19 protocols and they suggested providing training on these topics.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50590,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Developing World Bioethics\",\"volume\":\"24 3\",\"pages\":\"243-253\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Developing World Bioethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dewb.12417\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Developing World Bioethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dewb.12417","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 COVID-19 大流行期间,研究伦理委员会 (REC) 在加快审查研究方案方面发挥了至关重要的作用。为了提高伦理委员会的绩效并确定需要加强的领域,亚洲和西太平洋地区伦理审查委员会论坛 (FERCAP) 在印度开展了一项多中心研究。该研究旨在评估印度区域医疗中心在 COVID-19 爆发期间进行方案审查的准备情况,并了解它们遇到的挑战。在获得伦理委员会批准后,研究人员使用两份经过验证的调查问卷进行了横断面观察研究,其中一份针对区域协调中心成员秘书/主席,另一份针对区域协调中心成员。问卷包括 13 道选择题、10 道 "是 "或 "否 "题和 2 道开放式问题。研究报告分发给了多个区域经济委员会。共有 109/200 人同意参与研究,其中包括来自 34 个区域经济共同体的 13 名区域经济共同体成员秘书、12 名主席和 84 名区域经济共同体成员。在 COVID-19 大流行期间,23/25(92%)个区域执行委员会举行了在线会议。区域医疗中心面临的最常见挑战包括风险效益分析(12/25 个区域医疗中心)、知情同意书审查(12/25 个区域医疗中心)和涉及弱势群体的方案(10/25 个区域医疗中心)。65% 的 REC 成员表示需要接受伦理审查培训,66/84 的 REC 成员同意或非常同意 REC 需要接受 COVID-19 方案审查培训。此外,62/84 名区域执行委员会成员同意或非常同意中央/联合区域执行委员会应审查多中心 COVID-19 方案。印度的 REC 在审查风险效益分析、知情同意文件 (ICD) 和 COVID-19 方案时遇到了困难,他们建议提供有关这些主题的培训。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Surveying the Indian research ethics committee response to the COVID-19 pandemic

Research ethics committees (RECs) have played a crucial role in expediting the review of research protocols amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. To improve their performance and identify areas of enhancement, a multicentric study was conducted in India by the Forum for Ethical Review Committees in the Asian and Western Pacific Region (FERCAP). The study aimed to evaluate the preparedness of Indian RECs during the COVID-19 outbreak while conducting protocol reviews and comprehend the challenges they encountered. After obtaining ethics committee approval, a cross-sectional observational study was conducted using two validated questionnaires, one for REC member secretaries/chairpersons and another for REC members. The questionnaires consisted of 13 multiple-choice questions, 10 yes or no questions, and 2 open-ended questions each. The study was distributed to multiple RECs. A total of 109/200 participants, including 13 REC member secretaries, 12 chairpersons and 84 REC members from a total of 34 REC's, consented to participate in the study. During the COVID-19 pandemic, 23/25 (92%) of the RECs conducted online meetings. The most common challenges faced by RECs included risk-benefit analysis (12/25 RECs), review of informed consent (12/25 RECs), and protocols involving vulnerable populations (10/25 RECs). 65% of the REC members reported the need for ethics review training, and 66/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that RECs require training in COVID-19 protocol review. Additionally, 62/84 REC members agreed or strongly agreed that central/joint RECs should review multicenter COVID-19 protocols. RECs in India encountered difficulties while reviewing risk-benefit analyses, informed consent documents (ICDs), and COVID-19 protocols and they suggested providing training on these topics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Developing World Bioethics
Developing World Bioethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
4.50%
发文量
48
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Developing World Bioethics provides long needed case studies, teaching materials, news in brief, and legal backgrounds to bioethics scholars and students in developing and developed countries alike. This companion journal to Bioethics also features high-quality peer reviewed original articles. It is edited by well-known bioethicists who are working in developing countries, yet it will also be open to contributions and commentary from developed countries'' authors. Developing World Bioethics is the only journal in the field dedicated exclusively to developing countries'' bioethics issues. The journal is an essential resource for all those concerned about bioethical issues in the developing world. Members of Ethics Committees in developing countries will highly value a special section dedicated to their work.
期刊最新文献
Adults aged 65 years and older in South Africa have a responsibility to vaccinate against influenza. Revision of a self-assessment tool for research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries: Incorporation of elements that safeguard participants' rights and welfare. From COVID-19 to mpox vaccine hoarding - Has the Global North learned its global health lessons? Moral challenges and understanding of clinical ethics in Tanzanian hospitals: Perspectives of healthcare professionals. Indigenous Peoples' human genomic sovereignty: Lessons for Africa.
×
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