Abstract

BackgroundResearch ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments.MethodsIn this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)’s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO’s guidelines and to the other SOPs.ResultsSixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols.ConclusionsWe are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing.

Highlights

  • Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research

  • We looked at the Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative (CAMBIN) that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, following the World Health Organization (WHO)’s guidelines as a standard and compared these to the other SOPs

  • The CAMBIN ERCC SOPs appear to us a good compromise in terms of quality/brevity, complexity/comprehension and an acceptable model for other research ethics committee (REC) that are situated. The results of this qualitative analysis allow us, to propose our SOPs as a model and template for situated ethics committees, especially those on the African continent. Because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and userfriendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. A central aspect of research oversight involves the review and approval of research protocols by research ethics committees (RECs), otherwise called institutional review boards (IRBs) in some jurisdictions, before the proposed research is carried out. Ethics review has become an important pillar of the oversight and governance framework and RECs have become an indispensable part and parcel of all research involving human beings. In other parts of the world, new RECs/IRBs are increasingly springing into existence to provide local oversight to local or collaborative international research [2]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.