Ethical regulation of biomedical research in Brazil: a quality improvement initiative.
Brazil
Consent forms
Education
Research ethics committees
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 Jun 2024
10 Jun 2024
Historique:
received:
20
04
2023
accepted:
28
05
2024
medline:
11
6
2024
pubmed:
11
6
2024
entrez:
10
6
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38858731
doi: 10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5
pii: 10.1186/s12910-024-01065-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
68Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
UNESCO. Declaração Universal sobre Bioética e Direitos Humanos. 2005. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180por.pdf . Accessed 14 Apr 2019.
UNESCO. Guía Nº 2. Funcionamiento De Los Comités De Bioética: procedimientos y políticas. Paris: UNESCO; 2006.
Gangbo F, Quenum G, Guedou FA, Boko M. Knowledge, opinions and experiences of researchers regarding ethical regulation of biomedical research in Benin: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Ethics. 2022;23:116. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-022-00857-x
doi: 10.1186/s12910-022-00857-x
Potter VR. Bioethics: bridge to the future. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall; 1971.
Homedes N, Ugalde A. Latin American Research Ethics committees: whose interest do they serve? European Network Research Ethics Committee and ANCEI. The future of research ethics committees in Europe: creating the way to innovation. Barcelona: CEDRO; 2017. pp. 75–82.
Persad GC, Emanuel EJ. The ethics of expanding access to cheaper, less effective treatments. Lancet. 2016;388:932–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01025-9
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01025-9
Lorenzo C, Garrafa V, Solbakk JH, Vidal S. Hidden risks associated with clinical trials in developing countries. J Med Ethics. 2010;36:111–5. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2009.031708
doi: 10.1136/jme.2009.031708
Gaucher N, Lantos J, Payot A. How do national guidelines frame clinical ethics practice? A comparative analysis of guidelines from the US, the UK, Canada and France. Soc Sci Med. 2013;85:74–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.038
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.02.038
Fournier V, Rari E, Førde R, Neitzke G, Pegoraro R, Newson AJ. Clinical ethics consultation in Europe: a comparative and ethical review of the role of patients. Clin Ethics. 2009;4:131–8. https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2009.009020
doi: 10.1258/ce.2009.009020
Newson AJ, Neitzke G, Reiter-Theil S. The role of patients in European clinical ethics consultation. Clin Ethics. 2009;4:109–10. https://doi.org/10.1258/ce.2009.009015
doi: 10.1258/ce.2009.009015
Freitas CBD, Lobo MO, Sistema CEP. /Conep. Cadernos de Ética em Pesquisa. 2001. https://conselho.saude.gov.br/Web_comissoes/conep/aquivos/materialeducativo/cadernos_ etica_pesquisa_N7.pdf
Binsfeld P. Sistema Nacional de ética de pesquisas com seres humanos. Cadernos De Ética em Pesquisa. 2019;1:17–30.
Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução nº 196, de 10 de outubro de 1996. 1996. https://www.inca.gov.br/sites/ufu.sti.inca.local/files//media/document//resolucao-cns-196-96.pdf . Accessed 10 Dec 2020.
Brasil. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. Resolução nº 446, de 11 de agosto de 2011. http://conselho.saude.gov.br/images/comissoes/conep/documentos/NORMAS-RESOLUCOES/Resoluo_n_446_-_2011_-__Sobre_composio_da_CONEP.pdf . Accessed 17 Dec 2020.
Freitas CBD, Lobo M, Hossne W. Oito Anos De Evolução: um balanço do sistema CEP-Conep. Cadernos De Ética em Pesquisa. 2005;16:20–30.
Brasil, Ministério da Saúde. Sobre o PROADI-SUS. 2019. https://hospitais.proadi-sus.org.br/sobre-o-programa . Accessed 01 Oct 2020.
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). Áreas Territoriais. 2022. https://www.ibge.gov.br/geociencias/organizacao-do-territorio/estrutura-territorial/15761-areas-dos-municipios.html?t=acesso-ao-produto&c=1
UNESCO. Guía Nº 3. Capacitación De Los Comités De Bioética. Paris: UNESCO; 2007.
UNESCO. National Bioethics Committees in Action. Paris: UNESCO; 2010.
Zunt JR, Chi BH, Heimburger DC, Cohen CR, Strathdee S, Hobbs N, et al. The national institutes of health fogarty international center global health scholars and fellows program: collaborating across five consortia to strengthen research training. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2016;95:728–34. https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.16-0190
doi: 10.4269/ajtmh.16-0190