为涉及人类受试者的研究的伦理评价建立irb网络的巴西倡议的十二年

E. Hardy, S. F. Bento, E. M. Hebling, A. Faúndes, M. Osis, M. H. Sousa
{"title":"为涉及人类受试者的研究的伦理评价建立irb网络的巴西倡议的十二年","authors":"E. Hardy, S. F. Bento, E. M. Hebling, A. Faúndes, M. Osis, M. H. Sousa","doi":"10.1080/21507716.2010.528506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In Brazil, Resolution 196/96 on research involving human subjects created the National Council of Ethics in Research (CONEP) with a mandate to stimulate the creation of institutional review boards (IRBs) throughout the country, provide guidelines, and regulate their structure and operation. A descriptive study was carried out in 2007. The coordinators of all 508 IRBs registered in CONEP in 2006 were invited to participate; 502 accepted (response rate = 99%) and responded to a structured questionnaire conducted via telephone. Prior to the publication of Resolution 196/96, IRBs were created at an average rate of 1.7 per year. In contrast, an average of 47.3 IRBs per year were created between 1997 and 2006. The percentage of IRBs with their own physical space and telecommunication equipment was higher among older IRBs compared to more recently established IRBs. A significantly greater proportion of IRBs created prior to the year 2000 provided services for other institutions, offered courses, and produced texts on bioethics compared to the more recently established IRBs. Thus, in a period of only 12 years, Brazil progressed from having a small number of functioning IRBs to the current number of 508, reflecting the capacity of the federal government to mobilize teaching and research institutions and investigators. Nevertheless, while research institutions are adhering to the requirement for the social control of ethics in research, they are not yet willing to provide the resources these committees need to function properly. Despite these limitations, the colossal effort to promote implementation of appropriate ethical standards in research studies involving human subjects in Brazil has been successful.","PeriodicalId":89316,"journal":{"name":"AJOB primary research","volume":"62 1","pages":"19 - 27"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Twelve Years of the Brazilian Initiative to Create a Network of IRBs for the Ethical Evaluation of Research Studies Involving Human Subjects\",\"authors\":\"E. Hardy, S. F. Bento, E. M. Hebling, A. Faúndes, M. Osis, M. H. Sousa\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/21507716.2010.528506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In Brazil, Resolution 196/96 on research involving human subjects created the National Council of Ethics in Research (CONEP) with a mandate to stimulate the creation of institutional review boards (IRBs) throughout the country, provide guidelines, and regulate their structure and operation. A descriptive study was carried out in 2007. The coordinators of all 508 IRBs registered in CONEP in 2006 were invited to participate; 502 accepted (response rate = 99%) and responded to a structured questionnaire conducted via telephone. Prior to the publication of Resolution 196/96, IRBs were created at an average rate of 1.7 per year. In contrast, an average of 47.3 IRBs per year were created between 1997 and 2006. The percentage of IRBs with their own physical space and telecommunication equipment was higher among older IRBs compared to more recently established IRBs. A significantly greater proportion of IRBs created prior to the year 2000 provided services for other institutions, offered courses, and produced texts on bioethics compared to the more recently established IRBs. Thus, in a period of only 12 years, Brazil progressed from having a small number of functioning IRBs to the current number of 508, reflecting the capacity of the federal government to mobilize teaching and research institutions and investigators. Nevertheless, while research institutions are adhering to the requirement for the social control of ethics in research, they are not yet willing to provide the resources these committees need to function properly. Despite these limitations, the colossal effort to promote implementation of appropriate ethical standards in research studies involving human subjects in Brazil has been successful.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89316,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"19 - 27\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AJOB primary research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/21507716.2010.528506\",\"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/10.1080/21507716.2010.528506","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

在巴西,关于涉及人类受试者的研究的第196/96号决议设立了全国研究伦理委员会(CONEP),其任务是促进在全国各地建立机构审查委员会(irb),提供指导方针,并规范其结构和运作。2007年进行了一项描述性研究。2006年在CONEP注册的508家irb的协调员被邀请参加;502人接受了(回复率为99%),并通过电话进行了结构化问卷调查。在第196/96号决议公布之前,内部审查委员会以平均每年1.7个的速度建立。相比之下,1997年至2006年期间,平均每年创建47.3个irb。与新成立的irb相比,较老的irb拥有自己的物理空间和电信设备的百分比更高。2000年之前创建的伦理委员会为其他机构提供服务、提供课程和编写生物伦理学文本的比例明显高于最近成立的伦理委员会。因此,在仅仅12年的时间里,巴西从拥有少量运作的内部审查委员会发展到目前的508个,这反映了联邦政府动员教学和研究机构和调查人员的能力。然而,尽管研究机构坚持对研究伦理进行社会控制的要求,但它们仍不愿意提供这些委员会正常运作所需的资源。尽管存在这些限制,巴西为促进在涉及人类受试者的研究中实施适当的伦理标准所作的巨大努力是成功的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Twelve Years of the Brazilian Initiative to Create a Network of IRBs for the Ethical Evaluation of Research Studies Involving Human Subjects
In Brazil, Resolution 196/96 on research involving human subjects created the National Council of Ethics in Research (CONEP) with a mandate to stimulate the creation of institutional review boards (IRBs) throughout the country, provide guidelines, and regulate their structure and operation. A descriptive study was carried out in 2007. The coordinators of all 508 IRBs registered in CONEP in 2006 were invited to participate; 502 accepted (response rate = 99%) and responded to a structured questionnaire conducted via telephone. Prior to the publication of Resolution 196/96, IRBs were created at an average rate of 1.7 per year. In contrast, an average of 47.3 IRBs per year were created between 1997 and 2006. The percentage of IRBs with their own physical space and telecommunication equipment was higher among older IRBs compared to more recently established IRBs. A significantly greater proportion of IRBs created prior to the year 2000 provided services for other institutions, offered courses, and produced texts on bioethics compared to the more recently established IRBs. Thus, in a period of only 12 years, Brazil progressed from having a small number of functioning IRBs to the current number of 508, reflecting the capacity of the federal government to mobilize teaching and research institutions and investigators. Nevertheless, while research institutions are adhering to the requirement for the social control of ethics in research, they are not yet willing to provide the resources these committees need to function properly. Despite these limitations, the colossal effort to promote implementation of appropriate ethical standards in research studies involving human subjects in Brazil has been successful.
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