| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||
GLOBAL RESEARCH ETHICS |
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
Correspondence to:
A Hyder
Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, 615 N Wolfe St, E-8132 Baltimore, MD, USA; ahyder{at}jhsph.edu
Background: Increasing collaboration between industrialised and developing countries in human research studies has led to concerns regarding the potential exploitation of resource deprived countries. This study, commissioned by the former National Bioethics Advisory Commission of the United States, surveyed developing country researchers about their concerns and opinions regarding ethical review processes and the performance of developing country and US international review boards (IRBs).
Methods: Contact lists from four international organisations were used to identify and survey 670 health researchers in developing countries. A questionnaire with 169 questions explored issues of IRB review, informed consent, and recommendations.
Results: The majority of the developing country researchers were middle aged males who were physicians and were employed by educational institutions, carrying out research on part time basis. Forty four percent of the respondents reported that their studies were not reviewed by a developing country IRB or Ministry of Health and one third of these studies were funded by the US. During the review process issues such as the need for local language consent forms and letters for approval, and confidentiality protection of participants were raised by US IRBs in significantly higher proportions than by host country IRBs.
Conclusion: This survey indicates the need for the ethical review of collaborative research in both US and host countries. It also reflects a desire for focused capacity development in supporting ethical review of research.
Abbreviations: IRB, international review board; NBAC, National Bioethics Advisory Commission
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S B Kennedy, A O Harris, E Oudemans, L Young, J Kollie, E S Nelson, R A Nisbett, C Morris, N Bartee, E George-Williams, et al. Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: procedures and prospects. J. Med. Ethics, October 1, 2006; 32(10): 592 - 595. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S B Bhat and T T Hegde Ethical international research on human subjects research in the absence of local institutional review boards. J. Med. Ethics, September 1, 2006; 32(9): 535 - 536. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. Shaw, P. M Boynton, and T. Greenhalgh Research governance: where did it come from, what does it mean? J R Soc Med, November 1, 2005; 98(11): 496 - 502. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 N. Siegfried, M. Clarke, and J. Volmink Randomised controlled trials in Africa of HIV and AIDS: descriptive study and spatial distribution BMJ, October 1, 2005; 331(7519): 742. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. B. Dickler, D. Korn, S. Bhat, T. T. Hegde, J. Sugarman, E. J. Emanuel, and the Consortium to Examine Clinical Research Ethics The Costs of Institutional Review Boards N. Engl. J. Med., July 21, 2005; 353(3): 315 - 317. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. A. Hyder THE STANDARD OF CARE DEBATE: CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATIONS Am J Public Health, December 1, 2004; 94(12): 2048 - 2048. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS | REGISTER |
