Systems approach to assessing and improving local human research Institutional Review Board performance

Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions

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.

Understanding Constraints and Enablers of Turnaround Time for Ethics Review: The Case of Institutional Review Boards in Tanzania

Background. Independent ethics review of research is required prior to the implementation of all health research involving human participants. However, ethics review processes are challenged by protracted turnaround times, which may negatively impact the implementation of socially valuable research. Previous research has documented delays in ethics review in developed and developing countries. This study aimed to determine the extent of variability in turnaround times for protocol review among different institutional review boards (IRBs) within Tanzania. Methods. This descriptive cross-sectional study employed a mixed-method approach, with qualitative and quantitative components. Seven IRBs were purposively sampled from the 15 accredited IRBs operational in Tanzania during the study period, April 2017-April 2018. Quantitative data were analysed using STATA software and qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results. The median time for review across all IRBs was 32 days, with a range of 1-396 days. Qualitative results identified five key themes related to turnaround time from interviews with participants. These included: (1) procedures for receiving and distribution of protocols, (2) number of reviewers assigned to protocols, (3) duration of reviewing protocols, (4) reasons for delayed feedback, and (5) training of research ethics committee members. Conclusion. The study showed that the median days for ethical approval in Tanzania was 32 days. We observed from this study that electronic submission systems facilitated faster turnaround times. Failure to adhere to the submission checklists and guidelines was a major obstacle to the turnaround time.