The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey

Karbwang J 1 , Torres CE 2 , Navarro AM 3 , Wongwai P 3 , Jimenez EB 2 , Shetty Y 4 Show all authors , Ramalingam S 5 , Koli P 4 , Amir L 6 , Rachmawati SD 6 , Waworundeng M 6 , Rizki H 6 , Noor ASM 7 , Ghimire P 8 , Gyanwali P 8 , Sharma S 8 , Ghimire N 8 , Wanigatunge C 9 , Yimtae K 10

Affiliations 

  • 1 Drug Discovery and Development Center, Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, Bangkok, 12120, Thailand
  • 2 National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Metro Manila, 1000, Philippines
  • 3 Clinical Coordination and Training Center, Forum for Ethical Review Committees in Asia and the Pacific (FERCAP), Thammasat University, Pathum Thani, 12120, Thailand
  • 4 Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Seth Gordhandas Sunderdas Medical College and King Edward Memorial Hospital, Mumbai, 400012, India
  • 5 Department of Community Medicine, PSG Institute of Medical Sciences and Reseach, Coimbatore, 641004, India
  • 6 Forum of Indonesian Recognized Ethics Committees (FIRREC), Jakarta, 10430, Indonesia
  • 7 National Institutes of Health, Ministry of Health, Federal Government of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 40170, Malaysia
  • 8 National Ethical Review Board, Nepal Health Research Council, Ministry of Health & Population, Kathmandu, 7626, Nepal
  • 9 Faculty of Medical Science, University of Sri Jayewardenepura, Gangodawila, Nugegoda, 10250, Sri Lanka
  • 10 Faculty of Medicine, Khon Kaen University, Nai Mueang, Khon Kaen, 40002, Thailand
F1000Res, 2024;13:19.
PMID: 39165349 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.143138.1

Abstract

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs' responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active.

METHODS: The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test.

RESULTS: A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs.

CONCLUSIONS: Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

MeSH terms
Similar publications