• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

中国伦理委员会的表现:一项对伦理委员会员工和研究人员的经验和看法的调查。

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

机构信息

Medical Ethics Committee, Xiangya Hospital of Central South University, 87 Xiangya Road, Changsha, 410008, Hunan, People's Republic of China.

School of Literature and Journalism, Central South University, Changsha, 410012, Hunan, People's Republic of China.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Aug 29;23(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00826-4.

DOI:10.1186/s12910-022-00826-4
PMID:36038889
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9426015/
Abstract

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.

摘要

背景

绩效评估对于 IRB 运作至关重要。随着中国 IRB 的数量及其在审查和监督临床研究方面的职责的增加,对其绩效进行评估的需求非常大。迄今为止,针对中国的 IRB 绩效评估的研究很少。本研究的目的是了解 IRB 员工和研究人员的观点和经验,以(1)了解 IRB 的现状;(2)将收集到的结果与其他国家进行比较;(3)确定不足之处,以提高 IRB 的绩效。

方法

本研究于 2020 年 10 月至 2021 年 9 月在中国进行,采用在线调查和中国版的 IRB-研究人员评估工具。

结果

共有 757 名受访者参与了分析,分为 IRB 员工、研究人员,或同时担任 IRB 员工和研究人员的人员。总体而言,理想 IRB 的得分明显高于实际 IRB。与美国国家验证研究相比,中国参与者和美国参与者在对最理想和最不重要的理想项目的看法上既存在共识,也存在分歧。

结论

本研究为中国实际 IRB 的绩效提供了基准。可以通过针对确定的薄弱环节进行调整,来精确地调整中国的 IRB,以提高其绩效。

相似文献

1
Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers' experiences and perceptions.中国伦理委员会的表现:一项对伦理委员会员工和研究人员的经验和看法的调查。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Aug 29;23(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00826-4.
2
Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis.新加坡生物医学研究人员和研究支持人员对实际和理想的 IRB 审查功能和特点的看法:一项定量分析。
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0241783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241783. eCollection 2020.
3
Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version.IRB 研究者评估工具的跨文化验证:中文版本。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 28;22(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00699-z.
4
The investigator and the IRB: a survey of depression and schizophrenia researchers.研究者和伦理审查委员会:抑郁症和精神分裂症研究人员的调查。
Schizophr Res. 2010 Sep;122(1-3):206-12. doi: 10.1016/j.schres.2009.12.019. Epub 2010 Jan 12.
5
Analysis of factors influencing the organizational capacity of Institutional Review Boards In China: a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on 107 cases.基于 107 个案例的中国机构审查委员会组织能力影响因素分析:基于硬集定性比较分析
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Sep 26;24(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00956-3.
6
Institutional Review Board Use of Outside Experts: A National Survey.机构审查委员会使用外部专家:一项全国性调查。
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2022 Oct-Dec;13(4):251-262. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2022.2090459. Epub 2022 Jun 24.
7
Operational Characteristics of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) in the United States.美国机构审查委员会(IRB)的运作特点
AJOB Empir Bioeth. 2019 Oct-Dec;10(4):276-286. doi: 10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276. Epub 2019 Oct 16.
8
Process, Power, and Impact of the Institutional Review Board in Criminology and Criminal Justice Research.机构审查委员会在犯罪学和刑事司法研究中的过程、权力和影响。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Jul;16(3):263-279. doi: 10.1177/1556264621992240. Epub 2021 Mar 9.
9
Using the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool to Guide Quality Improvement.使用机构审查委员会研究人员评估工具指导质量改进。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2015 Dec;10(5):460-9. doi: 10.1177/1556264615612195. Epub 2015 Nov 2.
10
US IRBs confronting research in the developing world.美国机构伦理审查委员会在发展中国家面临的研究挑战。
Dev World Bioeth. 2012 Aug;12(2):63-73. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00324.x. Epub 2012 Apr 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Analysis of factors influencing the organizational capacity of Institutional Review Boards In China: a crisp-set Qualitative Comparative Analysis based on 107 cases.基于 107 个案例的中国机构审查委员会组织能力影响因素分析:基于硬集定性比较分析
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Sep 26;24(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00956-3.
2
Continuous quality improvement: reducing informed consent form signing errors.持续质量改进:减少知情同意书签署错误。
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Aug 4;24(1):59. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00933-w.
3
Ethical considerations for researchers developing and testing minimal-risk devices.研发和测试低风险医疗器械的研究人员的伦理考量。
Nat Commun. 2023 Apr 22;14(1):2325. doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-38068-6.

本文引用的文献

1
Challenges for ethics committees in biomedical research governance: illustrations from China and Australia.生物医学研究治理中伦理委员会面临的挑战:来自中国和澳大利亚的例证
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2021 Dec 10;14:25. doi: 10.18502/jmehm.v14i25.8279. eCollection 2021.
2
Assessment of the Operational Characteristics of Research Ethics Committees in Ghana.加纳研究伦理委员会运作特征评估。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022 Feb-Apr;17(1-2):114-128. doi: 10.1177/15562646211051189. Epub 2021 Oct 19.
3
Cross-cultural validation of the IRB Researcher Assessment Tool: Chinese Version.IRB 研究者评估工具的跨文化验证:中文版本。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Sep 28;22(1):133. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00699-z.
4
Improving the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards in the U.S.A. Through Performance Measurements.通过绩效评估提高美国机构审查委员会的质量和绩效。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Dec;16(5):479-484. doi: 10.1177/15562646211018665. Epub 2021 May 14.
5
Developing Quality and Efficiency of Institutional Review Board Review Under a Human Research Protection Program at a Leading Hospital in Central Southern China: A Descriptive Analysis of the First Three Years.中国中南部一家顶尖医院的人类研究保护计划下机构审查委员会审查的质量与效率提升:头三年的描述性分析
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2021 Jul;16(3):280-289. doi: 10.1177/1556264621995656. Epub 2021 Mar 17.
6
Assessing Research Ethics Committees in Myanmar: Results of a Self-Assessment Tool.评估缅甸的研究伦理委员会:一项自我评估工具的结果
Asian Bioeth Rev. 2020 Mar;12(1):37-49. doi: 10.1007/s41649-020-00113-7. Epub 2020 Mar 17.
7
Perspectives of Singaporean biomedical researchers and research support staff on actual and ideal IRB review functions and characteristics: A quantitative analysis.新加坡生物医学研究人员和研究支持人员对实际和理想的 IRB 审查功能和特点的看法:一项定量分析。
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0241783. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241783. eCollection 2020.
8
Assessing the Quality and Performance of Institutional Review Boards: Levels of Initial Reviews.评估机构审查委员会的质量和绩效:初步审查的级别。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):407-414. doi: 10.1177/1556264620956795. Epub 2020 Sep 11.
9
Systems approach to assessing and improving local human research Institutional Review Board performance.评估和改善当地人类研究机构审查委员会绩效的系统方法。
J Clin Transl Sci. 2018 Aug 8;2(2):103-109. doi: 10.1017/cts.2018.24. eCollection 2018 Apr.
10
Awareness of Jordanian Investigators About the Importance of Ethics Review Committees: A Pilot Study.约旦调查员对伦理审查委员会重要性的认识:一项初步研究。
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Apr;26(2):821-831. doi: 10.1007/s11948-019-00139-7. Epub 2019 Sep 30.