Fundació Institut Universitari Per a La Recerca a L'Atenció Primària de Salut Jordi Gol I Gurina (IDIAPJGol), Barcelona, Spain.
Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès), Barcelona, Spain.
BMC Prim Care. 2023 Apr 6;24(1):91. doi: 10.1186/s12875-023-02025-5.
Since March of 2020, the scientific community has been engaged a marathon to answer the different questions that COVID-19 pandemic has brought. During this time, Ethics Committees played an important role in reviewing the research protocols, COVID-19 or not, ensuring that the quality of scientific research is not relaxed by the hasty need for answers.
Descriptive study from January 2019 to December 2021, comparing COVID-19 protocols to those not COVID-19 related protocols and comparing the work overload. Variables related to the characteristics of the research protocols (i.e. study design, funding…), the principal investigators (gender, PhD degree, professional role…) and outcomes of the Ethics Committee process (requirements of modifications and time until approval) were analyze.
The number of sessions increased during COVID-19 pandemics (12 in 2019, 25 in 2020 and 18 in 2021). In total 751 protocols were evaluated during the study period; 513 (68.3%) had an observational design and 434 (57.8%) had no funding. The principal investigator was a woman in 491 (65.4%) studies and a General Practitioner in 330 (43.9%). The mean of the days until the protocol approval was 42.09 days (SD 60.2) with a decrease of 20.1 days from 2019 to 2021. A total of 614 (81.7%) protocols were approved, 336 (54.7%) within the first month after their initial evaluation. Less than half of the protocols were COVID-19 related (208, 44.3%). The COVID-19 protocols main topics were impact on the population (71, 34.1%); and COVID-19 pharmacological treatments (including vaccines) showed a higher increase in 2021 (37, 30.3%).
Despite the work overload during the pandemic due to the increase in the number of meetings and protocols, the IDIAPJGol EC reviewed all of them (COVID-19 or not) adapting to the new situation but according to its criteria of good practices to provide a quick response in the EC opinion. In Primary Health Care the most study designs have been observational studies, many of them with no funding and led by GPs. In 2021 there was an increase in the number of protocols focused on drugs, most likely related to COVID-19 vaccines studies.
自 2020 年 3 月以来,科学界一直在进行一场马拉松式的竞赛,以回答 COVID-19 大流行带来的各种问题。在此期间,伦理委员会在审查研究方案方面发挥了重要作用,无论是否与 COVID-19 相关,都确保了科学研究的质量不会因仓促寻求答案而放松。
本研究为 2019 年 1 月至 2021 年 12 月的描述性研究,比较了 COVID-19 方案与非 COVID-19 相关方案,并比较了工作负荷。分析了与研究方案特征相关的变量(即研究设计、资金……)、主要研究者(性别、博士学位、专业角色……)和伦理委员会流程的结果(修改要求和获得批准所需的时间)。
在 COVID-19 大流行期间,会议次数增加(2019 年 12 次,2020 年 25 次,2021 年 18 次)。在研究期间共评估了 751 项方案;其中 513 项(68.3%)为观察性设计,434 项(57.8%)无资金。491 项研究的主要研究者为女性(65.4%),330 项研究为全科医生(43.9%)。方案获得批准前的平均天数为 42.09 天(SD 60.2),2019 年至 2021 年减少了 20.1 天。共有 614 项(81.7%)方案获得批准,其中 336 项(54.7%)在首次评估后的第一个月内获得批准。不到一半的方案与 COVID-19 相关(208 项,44.3%)。COVID-19 方案的主要主题是对人群的影响(71 项,34.1%);COVID-19 药物治疗(包括疫苗)在 2021 年的增幅更高(37 项,30.3%)。
尽管由于会议和方案数量的增加导致工作量过大,但 IDIAPJGol EC 仍对所有方案进行了审查(无论是否与 COVID-19 相关),根据其良好实践标准进行了调整,以便在 EC 意见中提供快速响应。在初级保健中,大多数研究设计都是观察性研究,其中许多研究没有资金,由全科医生领导。2021 年,与药物相关的方案数量有所增加,很可能与 COVID-19 疫苗研究有关。