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

Assessing the Decision-Making Capabilities of Artificial Intelligence Platforms as Institutional Review Board Members

Background: Institutional review boards (IRBs) face delays in reviewing research proposals, underscoring the need for optimized standard operating procedures (SOPs). This study assesses the abilities of three artificial intelligence (AI) platforms to address IRB challenges and draft essential SOPs. Methods: An observational study was conducted using three AI platforms in 10 case studies reflecting IRB functions, focusing on creating SOPs. The accuracy of the AI outputs was assessed against good clinical practice (GCP) guidelines. Results: The AI tools identified GCP issues, offered guidance on GCP violations, detected conflicts of interest and SOP deficiencies, recognized vulnerable populations, and suggested expedited review criteria. They also drafted SOPs with some differences. Conclusion: AI platforms could aid IRB decision-making and improve review efficiency. However, human oversight remains critical for ensuring the accuracy of AI-generated solutions.

Gerontology, Art, and Activism: Can the Intersection of Art, Social Research, and Community Power Lead to Lasting Change?

This paper seeks to address the question of what gerontologists and humanities scholars can learn from how their respective fields engage with critical issues of age-based intersectional disadvantage, inequality, colonialism, and exclusion. The paper considers the Uncertain Futures Project, a participatory arts-led social research study based in Manchester, United Kingdom. The project explores the inequalities of women over 50 regarding issues of work using an intersectional lens. This work has produced a complex entanglement of methodological ideas that underpin performance art, community activism, and gerontological research. The paper will consider if this model can lead to a lasting impact beyond the scope of the project and beyond the individuals involved. First, we outline the work undertaken from the conception of the project. We consider the relationship between these activities and the ongoing nature of qualitative data analysis within the complexity of academic workloads and competing priorities. We raise questions and considerations of how the elements of the work have connected, collaborated, and intertwined. We also explore the challenges within interdisciplinary and collaborative work. Finally, we address the kind of legacy and impact created by work of this nature.

Research capacity, motivators and barriers to conducting research among healthcare providers in Tanzania's public health system: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Building health research capacity in low- and middle-income countries is essential to achieving universal access to safe, high-quality healthcare. It can enable healthcare workers to conduct locally relevant research and apply findings to strengthen their health delivery systems. However, lack of funding, experience, know-how, and weak research infrastructures hinders their ability. Understanding research capacity, engagement, and contextual factors that either promote or obstruct research efforts by healthcare workers can inform national strategies aimed at building research capacity.

METHODS

We used a convergent mixed-methods study design to understand research capacity and research engagement of healthcare workers in Tanzania's public health system, including the barriers, motivators, and facilitators to conducting research. Our sample included 462 randomly selected healthcare workers from 45 facilities. We conducted surveys and interviews to capture data in five categories: (1) healthcare workers research capacity; (2) research engagement; (3) barriers, motivators, and facilitators; (4) interest in conducting research; and (5) institutional research capacity. We assessed quantitative and qualitative data using frequency and thematic analysis, respectively; we merged the data to identify recurring and unifying concepts.

RESULTS

Respondents reported low experience and confidence in quantitative (34% and 28.7%, respectively) and qualitative research methods (34.5% and 19.6%, respectively). Less than half (44%) of healthcare workers engaged in research. Engagement in research was positively associated with: working at a District Hospital or above (p = 0.006), having a university degree or more (p = 0.007), and previous research experience (p = 0.001); it was negatively associated with female sex (p = 0.033). Barriers to conducting research included lack of research funding, time, skills, opportunities to practice, and research infrastructure. Motivators and facilitators included a desire to address health problems, professional development, and local and international collaborations. Almost all healthcare workers (92%) indicated interest in building their research capacity.

CONCLUSION

Individual and institutional research capacity and engagement among healthcare workers in Tanzania is low, despite high interest for capacity building. We propose a fourfold pathway for building research capacity in Tanzania through (1) high-quality research training and mentorship; (2) strengthening research infrastructure, funding, and coordination; (3) implementing policies and strategies that stimulate engagement; and (4) strengthening local and international collaborations.

Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1^st January 2020 to 20^th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.