巴西伦理研究审查制度:机构审查委员会视角下的评价

S. F. Bento, E. Hardy, E. M. Hebling, K. S. Pádua, M. Osis
{"title":"巴西伦理研究审查制度:机构审查委员会视角下的评价","authors":"S. F. Bento, E. Hardy, E. M. Hebling, K. S. Pádua, M. Osis","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2011.580493","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: In Brazil, all studies involving human beings must be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) registered with the National Commission for Ethics in Research (CONEP), the entity responsible for coordinating all IRBs in the country. Methods: In 2007, a broad quantitative evaluation of Brazilian IRBs was carried out, followed by a qualitative component conducted using a semistructured interview technique during the last three months of 2008. Twenty IRBs situated in five geographical regions of the country and located within different social and institutional contexts were selected. Eighty interviews were conducted. Results: In general, the functioning of all the IRBs was similar. Problems were found related to the infrastructure provided for their work and noncompliance with the Resolution 196/96 recommendation that IRB members be given time off from their normal duties for their work with the IRB. The research protocols were usually evaluated by only one or two members. It was mentioned that investigators tended to be resistant to sending their projects for evaluation and to challenging the reports issued. In general, the IRBs did not follow up on the studies that they approved because they lacked the means to be able to do so. Conclusions: Although a large network of IRBs has been created in Brazil, many of these IRBs confront serious difficulties in attempting to comply with the regulations established by the National Health Council (NHC), which may affect the ability of some IRBs to fulfill their role.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"26 1","pages":"28 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Brazilian Ethics Research Review System: An Evaluation from the Perspectives of Institutional Review Boards\",\"authors\":\"S. F. Bento, E. Hardy, E. M. Hebling, K. S. Pádua, M. Osis\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21507716.2011.580493\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: In Brazil, all studies involving human beings must be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) registered with the National Commission for Ethics in Research (CONEP), the entity responsible for coordinating all IRBs in the country. Methods: In 2007, a broad quantitative evaluation of Brazilian IRBs was carried out, followed by a qualitative component conducted using a semistructured interview technique during the last three months of 2008. Twenty IRBs situated in five geographical regions of the country and located within different social and institutional contexts were selected. Eighty interviews were conducted. Results: In general, the functioning of all the IRBs was similar. Problems were found related to the infrastructure provided for their work and noncompliance with the Resolution 196/96 recommendation that IRB members be given time off from their normal duties for their work with the IRB. The research protocols were usually evaluated by only one or two members. It was mentioned that investigators tended to be resistant to sending their projects for evaluation and to challenging the reports issued. In general, the IRBs did not follow up on the studies that they approved because they lacked the means to be able to do so. Conclusions: Although a large network of IRBs has been created in Brazil, many of these IRBs confront serious difficulties in attempting to comply with the regulations established by the National Health Council (NHC), which may affect the ability of some IRBs to fulfill their role.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"28 - 37\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2011-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.580493\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AJOB primary research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2011.580493","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

背景:在巴西,所有涉及人类的研究都必须由在国家研究伦理委员会(CONEP)注册的机构审查委员会(IRB)进行评估,该委员会负责协调该国所有IRB。方法:2007年,对巴西irb进行了广泛的定量评估,随后在2008年的最后三个月使用半结构化访谈技术进行了定性评估。选出了位于该国五个地理区域并处于不同社会和体制背景下的20个irb。共进行了80次访谈。结果:总体而言,所有irb的功能相似。发现问题与为其工作提供的基础设施有关,也与不遵守第196/96号决议的建议有关,即让内部审计委员会成员在其正常职责之外休息,以便与内部审计委员会一起工作。研究方案通常只由一两个成员进行评估。有人提到,调查人员往往不愿将其项目送交评价,也不愿对已发表的报告提出质疑。一般来说,内部审查委员会没有跟进他们批准的研究,因为他们缺乏这样做的手段。结论:尽管巴西已经建立了一个庞大的内部审查委员会网络,但其中许多内部审查委员会在试图遵守国家卫生委员会(NHC)制定的规定方面面临严重困难,这可能影响一些内部审查委员会履行其职责的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Brazilian Ethics Research Review System: An Evaluation from the Perspectives of Institutional Review Boards
Background: In Brazil, all studies involving human beings must be evaluated by an institutional review board (IRB) registered with the National Commission for Ethics in Research (CONEP), the entity responsible for coordinating all IRBs in the country. Methods: In 2007, a broad quantitative evaluation of Brazilian IRBs was carried out, followed by a qualitative component conducted using a semistructured interview technique during the last three months of 2008. Twenty IRBs situated in five geographical regions of the country and located within different social and institutional contexts were selected. Eighty interviews were conducted. Results: In general, the functioning of all the IRBs was similar. Problems were found related to the infrastructure provided for their work and noncompliance with the Resolution 196/96 recommendation that IRB members be given time off from their normal duties for their work with the IRB. The research protocols were usually evaluated by only one or two members. It was mentioned that investigators tended to be resistant to sending their projects for evaluation and to challenging the reports issued. In general, the IRBs did not follow up on the studies that they approved because they lacked the means to be able to do so. Conclusions: Although a large network of IRBs has been created in Brazil, many of these IRBs confront serious difficulties in attempting to comply with the regulations established by the National Health Council (NHC), which may affect the ability of some IRBs to fulfill their role.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信