health study often needs collaboration between various organisations and oversight from many study ethics committees (RECs) including those from partner organizations national committees ministries of health and funders which raises administrative burden and time. of honest principles MK-5172 sodium salt this process can result in delays and barriers to research.2 Usually each REC evaluations protocols independently (either sequentially or in parallel) and will often only review protocols after the additional committees have already approved them. Modifi cation requests can be quite different.2 Some RECs might MK-5172 sodium salt request modifications to increase the cultural appropriateness relevance of the research and the MK-5172 sodium salt availability of intervention during and after the project whereas others might focus on characters of authorization and difficulty of consent forms.3 These competing priorities Rabbit polyclonal to Hsp22. can mean that previously authorized protocols require more amendments but it is usually unclear which REC’s feedback should take precedence. Having to seek various approvals with no communication between RECs and no plan for which committee’s decisions take priority can lead to study bottlenecks. Many RECs particularly those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) have long turnaround occasions perhaps because of infrequent meetings overworked users and understaffed councils.2 These additional demands can make experts who must display REC approval to apply for grants less competitive for funding. Moreover the additional administrative burden study teams face to meet the requirements of several RECs might paradoxically reduce the time and attention given to the execution of research projects weakening honest oversight. One answer might be for RECs to learn about each other’s methods communicate about the proposals and harmonise processes.4 5 If a REC could benefit from additional support and capacity building then collaborating committees could provide this support. Ideally they could work collectively to ensure that partner RECs are meeting or exceeding international requirements. Collaborative capacity building might be particularly useful for long-term institutional collaborations.4 If long-term collaboration is not possible communication between RECs concerning their updated recommendations submission requirements expected turnaround occasions and agreement about the order of REC submissions might still be beneficial. To help efficient communication between these committees and experts we suggest that one REC MK-5172 sodium salt coordinate feedback and respond to submissions on behalf of all RECs. Whenever possible the lead REC should be an institutional review table from the country in which the research is being carried out. If the REC of the institution that is implementing the research is internationally accredited then the final word on authorization of or changes to the research protocol might be advisably carried out by that REC. Another result of needing all RECs connected in multinational collaborations (even when research will only be done in one LMIC) to review studies is the reinforcement of the belief that RECs from LMIC do not meet up with international standards. Although some RECs in LMICs have historically had inadequate ethics teaching 6 7 over the past 20 years the capacity of RECs from LMIC to do ethics evaluations that fulfill or exceed international standards has been strengthened. Many users of these boards have received ethics teaching funded or provided by international organisations such as the UN and WHO 8 9 and many more are authorized with the US Department of Health and Human being Services Office for Human being Study Protections.10 In 2000 92 of interviewed researchers from LMIC believed that their country’s national guidelines for protecting patients involved in research were effective 3 a number that would be expected to have increased now because of the high standard of ethical teaching. Despite these achievements RECs in LMICs are still sometimes undermined or are perceived as inadequate or ineffective. The belief that local RECs are ill-equipped is particularly unfortunate because they might be the most appropriate REC to oversee research projects in their countries. Local RECs are most familiar with the research environment participant populace and local advantages and difficulties. They can also assist.