Literature DB >> 34180729

Understanding Constraints and Enablers of Turnaround Time for Ethics Review: The Case of Institutional Review Boards in Tanzania.

Mwifadhi Mrisho1,2, Zaynab Essack2,3.   

Abstract

Background. Independent ethics review of research is required prior to the implementation of all health research involving human participants. However, ethics review processes are challenged by protracted turnaround times, which may negatively impact the implementation of socially valuable research. Previous research has documented delays in ethics review in developed and developing countries. This study aimed to determine the extent of variability in turnaround times for protocol review among different institutional review boards (IRBs) within Tanzania. Methods. This descriptive cross-sectional study employed a mixed-method approach, with qualitative and quantitative components. Seven IRBs were purposively sampled from the 15 accredited IRBs operational in Tanzania during the study period, April 2017-April 2018. Quantitative data were analysed using STATA software and qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results. The median time for review across all IRBs was 32 days, with a range of 1-396 days. Qualitative results identified five key themes related to turnaround time from interviews with participants. These included: (1) procedures for receiving and distribution of protocols, (2) number of reviewers assigned to protocols, (3) duration of reviewing protocols, (4) reasons for delayed feedback, and (5) training of research ethics committee members. Conclusion. The study showed that the median days for ethical approval in Tanzania was 32 days. We observed from this study that electronic submission systems facilitated faster turnaround times. Failure to adhere to the submission checklists and guidelines was a major obstacle to the turnaround time.

Entities:  

Keywords:  constraints and enablers of turnaround time; delays in approval process; ethical review in Tanzania; institution review boards in Tanzania; turnaround time

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34180729      PMCID: PMC8530844          DOI: 10.1177/15562646211026855

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics        ISSN: 1556-2646            Impact factor:   1.742


  45 in total

1.  Bureaucracy of ethics applications.

Authors:  David S Wald
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-07-31

2.  Operational Characteristics of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States.

Authors:  Genevieve L Nesom; Iraklis Petrof; Tyler M Moore
Journal:  AJOB Empir Bioeth       Date:  2019-10-16

3.  Clinical research regulation: challenges to the institutional review board system.

Authors:  Timothy M Straight
Journal:  Clin Dermatol       Date:  2009 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 3.541

Review 4.  Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research.

Authors:  Francis Barchi; Megan Kasimatis Singleton; Jon F Merz
Journal:  Am J Bioeth       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 11.229

5.  Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees.

Authors:  A H Ahmed; K G Nicholson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule?

Authors:  Charles W Lidz; Paul S Appelbaum; Robert Arnold; Philip Candilis; William Gardner; Suzanne Myers; Lorna Simon
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Understanding the Role and Legal Requirements of the Institutional Review Board.

Authors:  Lina Najib Kawar; Dale M Pugh; Elizabeth Ann Scruth
Journal:  Clin Nurse Spec       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.067

Review 8.  Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform.

Authors:  George Silberman; Katherine L Kahn
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2011-12       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, 1932 to 1972: implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community.

Authors:  S B Thomas; S C Quinn
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 9.308

10.  From anonymity to "open doors": IRB responses to tensions with researchers.

Authors:  Robert Klitzman
Journal:  BMC Res Notes       Date:  2012-07-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.