AI Article Synopsis
- The study examined the perspectives of scientists and research ethics committee (REC) members on the research protocol review process for health research in Uganda.
- Interviews with five scientists and five REC members highlighted key concerns, including compensation for volunteers, information sharing, and sample storage issues.
- To improve the process, regular discussions between researchers and REC members are necessary to enhance relevance and responsiveness.
Article Abstract
Background: We investigated how relevant and responsive scientists and research ethics committee (REC) members considered the research protocol review processes for health research practice in Uganda.
Methods: Interviews were conducted with five scientists and five REC members. Data were analysed thematically.
Results: How much to compensate for time, the amount of study information shared with volunteers and sample storage for future unknown research were areas of concern for REC members. Delays in getting feedback concerned scientists.
Conclusions: Researchers and REC members need to hold regular discussions to ensure the review process is relevant and responsive.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7651429 | PMC |
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihaa047 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!