4.5 Review

Awareness of Jordanian Investigators About the Importance of Ethics Review Committees: A Pilot Study

Journal

SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING ETHICS
Volume 26, Issue 2, Pages 821-831

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11948-019-00139-7

Keywords

Research ethics; Ethics committees; consultation; Ethics; Regulation

Funding

  1. Fogarty International Center of the U.S. National Institutes of Health [5R25TW010026-02]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Protection of study participants is an integral function of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Recently, great efforts were dedicated to enhance investigators' awareness of ethical principles in conducting human research and to implement reviewing committees' standards in Jordan to ensure the transparency, versatility, and responsibility in handling human subjects research in the country. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the awareness and attitudes of healthcare investigators in Jordan towards the structure and importance of IRBs. A questionnaire was distributed to 200 investigators and graduate students from the Jordan University of Science and Technology. The majority of the responses indicated positive knowledge towards core ethics guidelines and the importance of IRBs. This includes beneficence, confidentiality, informed consent, and treating participants with respect. In addition, the majority of participants (> 82%) agreed on the importance of the IRB for ensuring the rights, safety, and well-being of the research subjects. Moreover, the majority of participants (> 80%) agreed that the IRB members should be trained on ethics regulations in conducting research and declare any conflict of interest with the investigators. On the other hand, about 30% of participants believed that being reviewed by the IRB would delay research and make it more difficult for the researcher. Jordanian investigators have good awareness of and knowledge about research ethics and the importance of IRBs, though more education is needed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available