Makerere University Research Repository >
College of Health Sciences >
School of Health Sciences >
Research Articles (Health-Sciences) >
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title: ||Attitudes and perceptions about the Research and Ethics Committee in Kampala, Uganda|
|Authors: ||Ibingira, Charles BR|
|Keywords: ||Medical ethics|
Research ethics committee
|Issue Date: ||2010 |
|Publisher: ||Renaissance Medical Publishing|
|Citation: ||Ibingira, C. B. R. & Ochieng, J. (2010). Attitudes and Perceptions about the Research and Ethics Committee in Kampala, Uganda. International Journal of Medicine,|
The Makerere University Faculty of Medicine Research and
Ethics Committee reviews and approves more than 100 new
research protocols a year, yet its activities had never been
evaluated as far as the researchers are concerned.
Methods and results:
This was a cross sectional study at Makerere University
Faculty of Medicine and Mulago Teaching Hospital. The
survey population included all staff involved in research at the
post graduate level and faculty.
Most of the respondents agreed that decisions of the REC
were binding 53 (75.7%),15 (21%) hold that were variable
and 2(2.9%) biased. The biased attitudes of researchers
regarding protocol review reduces as researchers present
more protocols to the REC.
Most of the respondents do agree that the REC makes
researchers more aware of ethical issues (52.9%), that ethical
review is important for protection of human subjects (55.8%),
and that the system of ethical review protects human research
participants (65.7%). 48.6% believed that the REC ensures
that researchers adhere to elements of the consent process
which help to protect the autonomy of research participants.
However 51% doubt the ability of the REC to ensure that
researchers adhere to elements of the consent process during
conduct of research
More than 97% of the respondents believe that the REC is
either average or very good, while 2.8%rank it below average.
The Research and Ethics Committee sticks to the scientific
design and ethical issues to ensure protection of research
participants. Some respondents reported bias during review,
delay in approval of protocols as well as lack of follow up of
on going research.
However, majority of respondents ranked the committee as
average or above average.|
|Appears in Collections:||Research Articles (Health-Sciences)|
Files in This Item:
All items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.