Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers’ experiences and perceptions
-
Published:2022-08-29
Issue:1
Volume:23
Page:
-
ISSN:1472-6939
-
Container-title:BMC Medical Ethics
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:BMC Med Ethics
Author:
Liu Xing,Wu Ying,Yang Min,Li Yang,Khoshnood Kaveh,Luo Esther,Li Lun,Wang Xiaomin
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Performance evaluation is vital for IRB operations. As the number of IRBs and their responsibilities in reviewing and supervising clinical research grow in China, there is a significant need to evaluate their performances. To date, little research has examined IRB performance within China. The aim of this study was to ascertain the perspectives and experiences of IRB employees and researchers to (1) understand the current status of IRBs; (2) compare collected results with those of other countries; and (3) identify shortcomings to improve IRB performance.
Methods
This study was conducted in China from October 2020 to September 2021, using an online survey with the IRB-researcher assessment tool-Chinese version.
Results
757 respondents were included in the analysis and classified into IRB employees, researchers, or those who are both IRB employees and researchers. Overall, the score for an ideal IRB was significantly higher than that of an actual IRB. Compared to the US National Validation study, Chinese participants and American participants both agree and differ in their perspectives on the most and least important ideal items.
Conclusion
This investigation provides a benchmark of the perceived performance of actual IRBs in China. IRBs in China can be precisely adjusted by targeting identified areas of weakness to improve their performances.
Funder
Major Scientifc and Technological Projects for Collaborative Prevention and Control of Birth Defects in Hunan Province
NIH Fogarty International Center Masters Level Bioethics Program at Central South University in Changsha, China
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Health Policy,Health (social science),Issues, ethics and legal aspects
Reference53 articles.
1. World Health Organization. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. World Health Organization. 2011. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/44783. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.
2. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline for Good Clinical Practice E6(R1). International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. 2016. http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/article/efficacy-guidelines.html. Accessed 21 Feb 2022.
3. Enfield KB, Truwit JD. The Purpose, Composition, and Function of an Institutional Review Board: Balancing Priorities, vol. 53. Respiratory care. Dallas, TX: Daedalus Enterprises;2008, p. 1330–6.
4. Huanhuan C, Li M, Wang M, Roder D, Olver I. Challenges for ethics committees in biomedical research governance: illustrations from China and Australia. J Med Ethics History Med. 2021;2022;14:25–25.
5. Heimer CA, Petty J. Bureaucratic ethics: IRBs and the legal regulation of human subjects research. Annu Rev Law Soc Sci. 2010;6(1):601–26.
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献