A Survey to Determine the Capacity Development Needs of Research Ethics Committee Administrators in South Africa

Abstract

Most capacity development efforts for research ethics committees focus on committee members and little on ethics administrators. Increasing studies mandate the focus on administrators’ capacity development needs to enable adequate and effective committee support. This study investigated current responsibilities, training requirements, and administrator role needs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted among administrators from 62 National Health Research Ethics Council-registered research ethics committees in South Africa. In total, 36 administrators completed the questionnaire. Results show that, in addition to administration, they perform managerial, review process and guidance-advisory tasks. Nearly 49% indicated only having received informal research ethics-related training, not targeted formal training, with 81% of the informal training being through workshops. Research ethics administrators’ responsibilities have evolved to complex tasks requiring targeted capacity development efforts.

Capacity Development of Research Ethics Administrators: Scoping Review

“…This study deployed a scoping review methodology, which enabled the researchers to explore existing literature to locate the research topic in the existing body of knowledge. A scoping review aims to synthesize research evidence, map available literature in the field of interest, and summarize the results of the extracted evidence, and is usually employed when a particular topic has not been extensively researched ( Mogaka et al, 2017 ; Pham et al, 2014 ). It allows researchers to learn from other scholars’ findings in studies that might not have previously received extensive review.…”

“…It allows researchers to learn from other scholars’ findings in studies that might not have previously received extensive review. According to Pham et al (2014 , p. 372), the sole difference between a scoping review and systematic review is that, “the purpose of a scoping review is to map the body of literature on a topic area whereas the purpose of a systematic review is to sum up the best available research on a specific question”. As the current study is a preface to a larger study, it was necessary to, first, employ the scoping review to map the existing literature, instead of employing a systematic review.…”

Public health and research ethics education: the experience of developing a new cadre of bioethicists at a Ugandan institution

“…Despite the increase in the number of training programs in LMIC and the demonstrated success of some [ 6 , 24 ], there is a paucity of curriculum content and detailed methods for implementation in resource-limited contexts. Two decades have passed since the first NIH FIC research ethics training awards for African scholars and professionals, but there is still a dire need for more programs that are tailored to unique local needs [ 38 ]; the employability of bioethics graduates is a challenge in some countries [ 11 ]; and individuals with the capacity to teach research ethics are lacking. Two primary questions emerge: 1) What models are available for long-term training to address emerging needs of research ethics capacity for biomedical and public health research in disease-burdened LMICs?…”