2014
DOI: 10.1177/1556264614544101
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessing Institutional Ethics Committees in India Using the IRB-RAT

Abstract: Institutional ethics committees (IECs) are currently still in their infancy in low to middle income countries (LMICs), which may have important implications with regard to the oversight of the protection of human participants. Understanding how these IECs currently function is a critical first step in helping LMICs build infrastructures that support the protection of research participants and improve the scientific quality of health research worldwide. We assessed the functioning of the IECs at two medical col… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

3
28
4
3

Year Published

2015
2015
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(38 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
(35 reference statements)
3
28
4
3
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, PIs/PCs rated the actual IRB 0.81 points lower (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.68), thus magnifying the difference between the actual and ideal IRBs. This finding is also consistent with previously published data that demonstrate that investigators rate the IRB lower than IRB members (Hall et al 2015;Reeser et al 2008;Chenneville et al 2014), and that investigators who had served on an IRB scored the RAT higher than those who had not served on an IRB (Reeser et al 2008). As with the site-specific differences, the most interesting differences between PIs/PCs and IRB members/staff concerned the item-specific pattern rather than the overall magnitude of the difference.…”
Section: ; Schweikhart and Dembe 2009supporting
confidence: 92%
“…For example, PIs/PCs rated the actual IRB 0.81 points lower (95% CI: -0.94 to -0.68), thus magnifying the difference between the actual and ideal IRBs. This finding is also consistent with previously published data that demonstrate that investigators rate the IRB lower than IRB members (Hall et al 2015;Reeser et al 2008;Chenneville et al 2014), and that investigators who had served on an IRB scored the RAT higher than those who had not served on an IRB (Reeser et al 2008). As with the site-specific differences, the most interesting differences between PIs/PCs and IRB members/staff concerned the item-specific pattern rather than the overall magnitude of the difference.…”
Section: ; Schweikhart and Dembe 2009supporting
confidence: 92%
“…The importance of competent committees and comprehensive standards for REC functioning in LMICs is highlighted in the literature (Adams et al, 2014; Chenneville et al, 2014; Makhoul et al, 2014; Matar & Silverman, 2013; Silverman, Edwards, Shamoo, & Matar, 2013; Silverman & Sleem, 2014; Silverman et al, 2014). Nonetheless, concerns remain.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[ 66 ] The IRB Researcher's Assessment Tool (RAT) is one such tool,[ 67 ] which has been used in Gujarat to assess the functioning of the IECs at two medical colleges. [ 68 ]…”
Section: Way Forwardmentioning
confidence: 99%