RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Challenges in Institutional Ethical Review Process and Approval for International Multicenter Clinical Studies in Lower and Middle-Income Countries: the case of PARITY Study
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.03.20.24304598
DO 10.1101/2024.03.20.24304598
A1 Baron, Eliana Lopez
A1 Abbas, Qalab
A1 Caporal, Paula
A1 Agulnik, Asya
A1 Attebery, Jonah E.
A1 Holloway, Adrian
A1 Kissoon, Niranjan “Tex”
A1 Mulgado-Aguas, Celia Isabel
A1 Amegan-Aho, Kokou
A1 Majdalani, Marianne
A1 Ocampo, Carmen
A1 Pascal, Havugarurema
A1 Miller, Erika
A1 Kanyamuhunga, Aimable
A1 Tekleab, Atnafu Mekonnen
A1 Bacha, Tigist
A1 González, Sebastian
A1 Bhutta, Adnan T.
A1 Kortz, Teresa B.
A1 Murthy, Srinivas
A1 Remy, Kenneth E.
A1 ,
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/03/22/2024.03.20.24304598.abstract
AB Objectives To describe the regulatory process, variability and challenges faced by pediatric researchers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) during the institutional review board (IRB) process of an international multicenter observational point prevalence study (Global PARITY).Design A 16-question multiple-choice online survey was sent to site principal investigators (PIs) at PARITY study participating centers to explore characteristics of the IRB process, costs, and barriers to research approval. A shorter survey was employed for sites that expressed interest in participating in Global PARITY and started the approval process, but ultimately did not participate in data collection (non-participating sites) to assess IRB characteristics.Subjects PIs from the Global PARITY StudyInterventions None.Results Ninety-one sites pursued local IRB approval and 46 sites obtained IRB approval and completed data collection. Forty-six (100 %) participating centers and 21 (47%) non-participant centers completed the survey. Despite receiving approval from the study’s lead center and being categorized as a minimal risk study, 36 (78%) of the hospitals involved in PARITY study required their own full board review. There was a significant difference between participating and non-participating sites in IRB approval of a waiver consent and in the requirement for a legal review of the protocol. The greatest challenge to research identified by non-participating sites was a lack of research time and the lack of institutional support.Conclusions Global collaborative research is crucial to increase our understanding of pediatric critical care conditions in hospitals of all resource-levels and IRBs are required to ensure that this research complies with ethical standards. Critical barriers restrict research activities in some resource limiting countries. Increasing the efficiency and accessibility of local IRB review could greatly impact participation of resource limited sites and enrollment of vulnerable populations.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThe author(s) received no specific funding for this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Global PARITY was coordinated by the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Maryland and has been deemed exempt by the University of Maryland (IRB, HP-00086107).I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript