Background: The Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Committees (RECs) is established to review the research proposals and ensure that participants’ ethical standards, scientific merit, and human rights are protected. Purpose: The authors report the experience of the REC at Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia over 10 years period. Methods: All proposals submitted to Qassim REC during the period 2008-2017 were studied using a 30 items data collection form based on The National Committee of Bioethics Regulations. Data extracted included; principal investigator characteristics, numbers of proposals reviewed, applications completeness, approval decision status, reported ethical issues, classification of the ethical review, and committee review duration. The structure, workload, and review process of Qassim REC were addressed redundant. Results: During 10 years, Qassim Research Ethics Committee (QREC) witnessed a progressive increase in the number of submitted proposals, from 9 to 149 proposals. Out of 508 submitted applications, 439 (86.4%) proposals were eligible for ethical review. Of these, 50 (11.4%) proposals were incomplete due to nonresponse of the principal investigators to the QREC comments. The final decision was made for 389 (88.6%) completed proposals. The approval rate was 85.4%, while the rejection rate was only 1.1%. The median time taken for ethical review was 13 days. Proposals that underwent full board review had a long review duration (Median: 19 days) in comparison to the expedited review (Median: 10 days). Incomplete Committee requirements, unclear research methodology, or possible ethical violation opportunities were the main reasons for delayed decisions. Conclusion: The workload of the Qassim ethics committee is high and growing progressively. However, the process indicators as per National Bioethics Committee rules were satisfactory. Rejection of proposals was rare as most of the reviewed proposals were descriptive studies with infrequent ethical matters.
References
[1]
Hurran, E. (2002, May 6) Patients’ Rights: From Alder Hey to the Nuremberg Code. History and Policy.
[2]
Hassidim, A., Kayouf, R., Yavnai, N., Panush, N., Dagan, D., Bader, T. and Hartal, M. (2016) Ethical Standards for Medical Research in the Israeli Military—Review of the Changes in the Last Decade. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research, 5, Article No. 53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13584-016-0113-4
[3]
World Medical Association (2013) WMA Declaration of Helsinki Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects [Database on the Internet] 1968. https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/DoH-Oct2013-JAMA.pdf
[4]
Marshall, P.A. (2007) Ethical Challenges in Study Design and Informed Consent for Health Research in Resource-Poor Settings. Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases. World Health Organization, France. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43622/9789241563383_eng.pdf?sequence=1
[5]
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (2002) OHRP QA Self-Assessment Tool. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/education/qip/ohrp_ded_qatool.html
[6]
National Research Council (US) and Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Assessing Integrity in Research Environments (2002) 2. Integrity in Research. In: Burroughs, T. and Hayes, M.K., Eds., Integrity in Scientific Research: Creating an Environment That Promotes Responsible Conduct, National Academies Press (US), Washington DC. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208714/
[7]
National Committee of Bio-Medical Ethics (2011) King Abdulaziz City of Science and technology KACST: Procedures List of the System of Ethics of Research on Living Creatures. King Abdulaziz City of Science and Technology, Saudi.
[8]
Kim, W.O. (2012) Institutional Review Board (REC) and Ethical Issues in Clinical Research. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 62, 3-12. https://doi.org/10.4097/kjae.2012.62.1.3
[9]
Lo, B. (2010) Ethical Issues in Clinical Research: A Practical Guide. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, 3-4.
[10]
Mazur, D.J. (2007) Evaluating the Science and Ethics of Research on Humans: A Guide for REC Members. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 13-32.
[11]
Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP) and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) (2003) Expedited Review Procedures Guidance (2003). https://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/regulations-and-policy/guidance/guidance-on-expedited-review-procedures/index.html
[12]
Green, L.A., Lowery, J.C., Kowalski, C.P. and Wyszewianski, L. (2006) Impact of Institutional Review Board Practice Variation on Observational Health Services Research. Health Services Research, 41, 214-230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00458.x
[13]
Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) (2015) Regulations and Requirements for Conducting Clinical Trials on Drugs. Version 1.1. https://www.sfda.gov.sa/sites/default/files/2021-12/Drug-resources456ee.pdf
[14]
Lidz, C.W., Appelbaum, P.S., Arnold, R., Candilis, P., Gardner, W., et al. (2012) How Closely Do Institutional Review Boards Follow the Common Rule? Academic Medicine, 87, 969-974. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e
[15]
Kass, N.E., Hyder, A.A., Ajuwon, A., Appiah-Poku, J., Barsdorf, N., et al. (2007) The Structure and Function of Research Ethics Committees in Africa: A Case Study. PLoS Medicine, 4, Article No. e3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040003
[16]
Coleman, C.H., Bouesseau, M.C. (2008) How Do We Know That Research Ethics Committees Are Really Working? The Neglected Role of Outcomes Assessment in Research Ethics Review. BMC Medical Ethics, 9, Article No. 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-9-6
[17]
Beecher, H.K. (1966) Ethics and Clinical Research. New England Journal of Medicine, 274, 1354-1360. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM196606162742405
[18]
Nusbaum, L., Douglas, B., Damus, K., Paasche-Orlow, M. and Estrella-Luna, N. (2017) Communicating Risks and Benefits in Informed Consent for Research: A Qualitative Study. Global Qualitative Nursing Research, 4, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/2333393617732017
[19]
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2016) International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans, 4th Edition, Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), Geneva. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf
[20]
Ferguson, P.R. (2003) Information Giving in Clinical Trials: The Views of Medical Researchers. Bioethics, 117, 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8519.00324
[21]
Hallinan, Z.P., Forrest, A., Uhlenbrauck, G., Young, S. and McKinney Jr., R. (2016) Barriers to Change in the Informed Consent Process: A Systematic Literature Review. Ethics & Human Research, 38, 1-10.
[22]
Adams, P., Kaewkungwal, J., Limphattharacharoen, C., Prakobtham, S., Pengsaa, K., et al. (2014) Is Your Ethics Committee Efficient? Using ‘‘REC Metrics’’ as a Self-Assessment Tool for Continuous Improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand. PLoS ONE, 9, Article ID: e113356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113356
[23]
Catania, J.A., Lo, B., Wolf, L.E., Dolcini, M.M., Pollack, L.M., et al. (2008) Survey of U.S. Human Research Protection Organizations: Workload and Membership. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 3, 57-69. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2008.3.4.57
[24]
Institution Review Board, University of Missouri-Columbia (2008) Standard Operating Procedure: Assessments/Audits. https://docs.research.missouri.edu/human_subjects/SOP_Initial_Review.pdf
[25]
Mayo Clinic Human Research Protection Program (2021) Roles, Qualifications and Evaluation of REC Members Procedure. Institutional Review Board. http://www.mayo.edu/research/documents/9-roles-qualification-and-eval-of-REC-memberspdf/DOC-10027103
[26]
University of Michigan (2013) University of Michigan REC Metrics. http://www.hrpp.umich.edu/Indicators_Report_January_2013_Final.pdf
[27]
Wayne State University, Division of Research Research Compliance (2014) REC Time to Approval, Full Board Metrics. https://research.wayne.edu/irb
[28]
Eyelade, O.R., Ajuwon, A.J. and Adebamowo, C.A. (2011) An Appraisal of the Process of Protocol Review by an Ethics Review Committee in a Tertiary Institution in Ibadan. African Journal of Medicine and Medical Sciences, 40, 163-169.
[29]
Wu, Y., Howarth, M., Zhou, C., Hu, M. and Cong, W. (2019) Reporting of Ethical Approval and Informed Consent in Clinical Research Published in Leading Nursing Journals: A Retrospective Observational Study. BMC Medical Ethics, 20, Article No. 94. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-019-0431-5
[30]
Schroter, S., Plowman, R., Hutchings, A. and Gonzalez, A. (2006) Reporting Ethics Committee Approval and Patient Consent by Study Design in Five General Medical Journals. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32, 718-723. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.015115
[31]
Kim, S.Y.H. and Miller, F. (2016) Waivers and Alterations to Consent in Pragmatic Clinical Trials: Respecting the Principle of Respect for Persons. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 38, 1-5.
[32]
Dada, M.A. and Moorad, R. (2001) A Review of South African Research Ethics Committee. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics, 9, 58-59.
[33]
Auerswald, C.L., Akemi Piatt, A. and Mirzazadeh, A. (2017) Research with Disadvantaged, Vulnerable and/or Marginalized Adolescents. United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, New York. https://www.unicef-irc.org/publications/878-research-with-disadvantaged-vulnerable-and-or-marginalized-adolescents.html
[34]
Bueno, M., Brevidelli, M.M., Cocarelli, T., Santos, G.M., Ferraz, M.A., Mion Jr., D. (2009) Reasons for Resubmission of Research Projects to the Research Ethics Committee of a University Hospital in São Paulo, Brazil. Clinics, 64, 831-836. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1807-59322009000900002
[35]
Davies, S.E.H. (2020) The Introduction of Research Ethics Review Procedures at a University in South Africa: Review Outcomes of a Social Science Research Ethics Committee. Research Ethics, 16, 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016119898408
[36]
Novaes, M.R.G., Guilhem, D. and Lolas, F. (2009) Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Human Beings in Brazil: Diagnosis of Research Ethics Committee. Arquivos de Medicina, 23, 145-150.
