What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015

Objective. A retrospective examination of numbers of applications, decision rates, and process errors in 2015 was done for comparison with earlier studies to understand current ethics secretariat workload. Methods. In December 2015 information from committee minutes of all the meetings (N=11) in 20...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Peter Cleaton-Jones
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: South African Medical Association 2016-12-01
Series:South African Journal of Bioethics and Law
Online Access:http://www.sajbl.org.za/index.php/sajbl/article/download/494/494
_version_ 1797369839761752064
author Peter Cleaton-Jones
author_facet Peter Cleaton-Jones
author_sort Peter Cleaton-Jones
collection DOAJ
description Objective. A retrospective examination of numbers of applications, decision rates, and process errors in 2015 was done for comparison with earlier studies to understand current ethics secretariat workload. Methods. In December 2015 information from committee minutes of all the meetings (N=11) in 2015 (January - November) was collected to quantify change in application numbers and process errors. Statistical analysis used SAS for Windows (version 9.4). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.Results. There were 809 new general research applications considered in 2015. Monthly approvals at first evaluation ranged from 4 to 30% with an overall approval rate of 16%. Minor revision was required in 72%, major revision in 11% and 1% of applications were not approved. The χ2 test for trend for initial approval showed a statistically significant decrease across the study periods (p<0.0001). However, the χ2 test for trend for pending responses from applicants was also statistically significant (χ2=29.64). Informed consent and missing information process errors were the most frequent. There were statistically significant increases in lapses of confidentiality methods (p<0.0001) and discrepancies on application forms (p<0.005).Conclusion. Applications to the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) (HREC (M)) for ethics clearance almost doubled between 2003 and 2015 while approvals at first evaluation approximately halved. This has increased the workload on the HREC (M) secretariat. Process error rates are similar to those in an earlier study except that confidentiality and discrepancies have shown a statistically significant increase. Given limitation on the number of secretariat staff in the current stringent financial circumstances of South African universities, applicants need to improve the quality of their applications to increase approval at first review and reduce secretariat workload
first_indexed 2024-03-08T17:52:42Z
format Article
id doaj.art-fc541b66405a4e0aa71c149d699cd8ee
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1999-7639
language English
last_indexed 2024-03-08T17:52:42Z
publishDate 2016-12-01
publisher South African Medical Association
record_format Article
series South African Journal of Bioethics and Law
spelling doaj.art-fc541b66405a4e0aa71c149d699cd8ee2024-01-02T07:03:39ZengSouth African Medical AssociationSouth African Journal of Bioethics and Law1999-76392016-12-0192696910.7196/SAJBL.2016.v9i2.494What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015Peter Cleaton-JonesObjective. A retrospective examination of numbers of applications, decision rates, and process errors in 2015 was done for comparison with earlier studies to understand current ethics secretariat workload. Methods. In December 2015 information from committee minutes of all the meetings (N=11) in 2015 (January - November) was collected to quantify change in application numbers and process errors. Statistical analysis used SAS for Windows (version 9.4). Statistical significance was set at p<0.05.Results. There were 809 new general research applications considered in 2015. Monthly approvals at first evaluation ranged from 4 to 30% with an overall approval rate of 16%. Minor revision was required in 72%, major revision in 11% and 1% of applications were not approved. The χ2 test for trend for initial approval showed a statistically significant decrease across the study periods (p<0.0001). However, the χ2 test for trend for pending responses from applicants was also statistically significant (χ2=29.64). Informed consent and missing information process errors were the most frequent. There were statistically significant increases in lapses of confidentiality methods (p<0.0001) and discrepancies on application forms (p<0.005).Conclusion. Applications to the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee (Medical) (HREC (M)) for ethics clearance almost doubled between 2003 and 2015 while approvals at first evaluation approximately halved. This has increased the workload on the HREC (M) secretariat. Process error rates are similar to those in an earlier study except that confidentiality and discrepancies have shown a statistically significant increase. Given limitation on the number of secretariat staff in the current stringent financial circumstances of South African universities, applicants need to improve the quality of their applications to increase approval at first review and reduce secretariat workloadhttp://www.sajbl.org.za/index.php/sajbl/article/download/494/494
spellingShingle Peter Cleaton-Jones
What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
South African Journal of Bioethics and Law
title What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
title_full What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
title_fullStr What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
title_full_unstemmed What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
title_short What changes are there in decisions by the Wits Human Research Ethics Committee Medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
title_sort what changes are there in decisions by the wits human research ethics committee medical and in process errors by research applicants between 2003 and 2015
url http://www.sajbl.org.za/index.php/sajbl/article/download/494/494
work_keys_str_mv AT petercleatonjones whatchangesarethereindecisionsbythewitshumanresearchethicscommitteemedicalandinprocesserrorsbyresearchapplicantsbetween2003and2015