• 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

巴西生物医学研究的伦理监管:一项质量改进举措。

Ethical regulation of biomedical research in Brazil: a quality improvement initiative.

机构信息

Comissão Nacional de Ética em Pesquisa (CONEP), SRTV 701, Via W 5 Norte, lote D - Edifício PO 700, Asa Norte, Brasília, 70719040, DF, Brazil.

Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV), R. Ramiro Barcelos, 910, Porto Alegre, 90035000, RS, Brazil.

出版信息

BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Jun 10;25(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5.

DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5
PMID:38858731
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11163760/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Q-CEP (Qualificação dos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa que compõem o Sistema CEP/Conep) is a nationwide project resulting from a partnership between the Brazilian National Research Ethics Commission (Conep), the Ministry of Health and Hospital Moinhos de Vento (HMV). It was developed to consolidate policy for ethical review of research with human beings in all members of the CEP/Conep System, Brazil's national system of institutional review boards. The aim of this study was therefore to report on the experience and results of the Q-CEP project.

METHODS

An observational, retrospective study includes data from the Q-CEP, obtained from visits to all the institutional research ethics committees (RECs) in the country. The actions implemented by Q-CEP were part of a two-step process: (i) training visits to each REC; (ii) development of distance learning modules on strategic topics pertaining to research ethics evaluation. The data presented herein cover step one (training visits), defined by Q-CEP as the diagnostic stage of the project. For a country with social and economics inequalities such as Brazil, this is a particularly important stage; an accurate picture of reality is needed to inform planning of quality improvement strategies.

RESULTS

In 2019-2021, Q-CEP visited 832 RECs and trained 11,197 people. This sample covered almost all active RECs in the country; only 4 (0.5%) were not evaluated. Of the 94 items evaluated, 62% did not reach the target of at least 80% compliance and around 1/4 (26%) were below 50% compliance. The diagnostic stage of the process revealed inadequacies on the part of the RECs in their ethical reviews. The analysis of informed consent forms showed compliance in only 131 RECs (15.74%). The description of pending issues made by RECs in their reports was compliant in 19.33% (n = 161). Administrative and operational aspects were also considered inadequate by more than half of the RECs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, Brazilian RECs showed poor compliance in several aspects of their operation, both in ethics evaluation and in other processes, which justifies additional training. The Q-CEP project is part of a quality improvement policy promoted by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. The data obtained in the diagnostic step of the project have contributed to the qualification and consolidation of one of the world's largest research ethics evaluation systems.

摘要

背景

Q-CEP(Qualificação dos Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa que compõem o Sistema CEP/Conep,组成 CEP/Conep 系统的伦理委员会资格认证)是一个全国性项目,由巴西国家伦理审查委员会(Conep)、卫生部和 Moinhos de Vento 医院(HMV)共同发起。该项目旨在巩固巴西全国机构审查委员会系统(CEP/Conep 系统)中所有成员对以人为对象的研究进行伦理审查的政策。因此,本研究旨在报告 Q-CEP 项目的经验和结果。

方法

本研究为观察性、回顾性研究,数据来源于 Q-CEP,由全国所有机构研究伦理委员会(RECs)提供。Q-CEP 实施的行动分为两个步骤:(i)对每个 REC 进行培训访问;(ii)开发关于研究伦理评估战略主题的远程学习模块。本文介绍的资料涵盖了第一步(培训访问),Q-CEP 将其定义为项目的诊断阶段。对于巴西这样一个存在社会和经济不平等的国家来说,这是一个特别重要的阶段;需要准确了解实际情况,以便为质量改进战略规划提供信息。

结果

2019-2021 年,Q-CEP 共访问了 832 个 REC,并培训了 11197 人。该样本几乎涵盖了巴西所有活跃的 REC;只有 4 个(0.5%)未进行评估。在评估的 94 个项目中,62%未达到至少 80%的达标率,约四分之一(26%)的达标率低于 50%。该过程的诊断阶段揭示了 REC 在伦理审查方面的不足。对 REC 知情同意书的分析显示,只有 131 个 REC(15.74%)符合要求。REC 在报告中描述的待决问题符合规定的比例为 19.33%(n=161)。行政和运营方面也被超过一半的 REC 认为不达标。

结论

总体而言,巴西 REC 在伦理评估和其他流程的运作方面都存在多个方面的合规性差,这证明需要进一步培训。Q-CEP 项目是巴西卫生部推动的质量改进政策的一部分。项目诊断阶段获得的数据有助于资格认证和巩固世界上最大的研究伦理评估系统之一。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99cd/11163760/4b203239799e/12910_2024_1065_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99cd/11163760/4b203239799e/12910_2024_1065_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/99cd/11163760/4b203239799e/12910_2024_1065_Fig1_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
Ethical regulation of biomedical research in Brazil: a quality improvement initiative.巴西生物医学研究的伦理监管:一项质量改进举措。
BMC Med Ethics. 2024 Jun 10;25(1):68. doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5.
2
Professional and academic profile of the Brazilian research ethics committees.巴西研究伦理委员会的专业和学术概况。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 11;23(1):109. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00847-z.
3
Research ethics in the Brazilian CEP-CONEP system: necessary reflections.巴西CEP-CONEP系统中的研究伦理:必要的思考。
Cien Saude Colet. 2019 Mar;24(3):1033-1040. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018243.35292016.
4
Biothics in Brazil.巴西的生物伦理学。
Bioethics. 1999 Jul;13(3-4):244-8. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00152.
5
Surveying the Indian research ethics committee response to the COVID-19 pandemic.调查印度研究伦理委员会对 COVID-19 大流行的反应。
Dev World Bioeth. 2024 Sep;24(3):243-253. doi: 10.1111/dewb.12417. Epub 2023 Aug 4.
6
The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey.亚洲研究伦理委员会应对 COVID-19 大流行的准备情况:一项多国家调查。
F1000Res. 2024 Jan 8;13:19. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.143138.1. eCollection 2024.
7
Research Ethics Committees' Oversight of Biomedical Research in South Africa: A Thematic Analysis of Ethical Issues Raised During Ethics Review of Non-Expedited Protocols.南非研究伦理委员会对生物医学研究的监督:对非快速审查方案伦理审查期间提出的伦理问题的主题分析。
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2019 Apr;14(2):107-116. doi: 10.1177/1556264618824921. Epub 2019 Jan 24.
8
Description and Evaluation of the Research Ethics Review Process in Japan: Proposed Measures for Improvement.日本研究伦理审查过程的描述与评估:改进建议措施
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016 Jul;11(3):256-66. doi: 10.1177/1556264616660644.
9
Results of a self-assessment tool to assess the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries.用于评估低收入和中等收入国家研究伦理委员会运作特征的自我评估工具的结果。
J Med Ethics. 2015 Apr;41(4):332-7. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2013-101587. Epub 2014 Apr 19.
10
The CEP-Conep System in 2020: confronting COVID-19, challenges and lessons learned.CEP-Conep 系统 2020 年:应对 COVID-19、挑战与经验教训。
Cien Saude Colet. 2024 Oct;29(10):e01582023. doi: 10.1590/1413-812320242910.01582023. Epub 2023 Oct 11.

本文引用的文献

1
Knowledge, opinions and experiences of researchers regarding ethical regulation of biomedical research in Benin: a cross-sectional study.贝宁生物医学研究伦理监管的研究人员的知识、意见和经验:一项横断面研究。
BMC Med Ethics. 2022 Nov 19;23(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00857-x.
2
The National Institutes of Health Fogarty International Center Global Health Scholars and Fellows Program: Collaborating Across Five Consortia to Strengthen Research Training.美国国立卫生研究院福格蒂国际中心全球健康学者及研究员项目:跨五个联盟合作以加强研究培训。
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016 Sep 7;95(3):728-34. doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0190. Epub 2016 Jul 5.
3
The ethics of expanding access to cheaper, less effective treatments.
扩大获得更便宜但效果较差治疗方法的可及性的伦理问题。
Lancet. 2016 Aug 27;388(10047):932-4. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01025-9. Epub 2016 Apr 20.
4
How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France.国家指南如何构建临床伦理实践?来自美国、英国、加拿大和法国的指南比较分析。
Soc Sci Med. 2013 May;85:74-8. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.038. Epub 2013 Mar 5.
5
Hidden risks associated with clinical trials in developing countries.发展中国家临床试验相关的潜在风险。
J Med Ethics. 2010 Feb;36(2):111-5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.031708.