Understanding Constraints and Enablers of Turnaround Time for Ethics Review: The Case of Institutional Review Boards in Tanzania

Abstract

Background . Independent ethics review of research is required prior to the implementation of all health research involving human participants. However, ethics review processes are challenged by protracted turnaround times, which may negatively impact the implementation of socially valuable research. Previous research has documented delays in ethics review in developed and developing countries. This study aimed to determine the extent of variability in turnaround times for protocol review among different institutional review boards (IRBs) within Tanzania. Methods . This descriptive cross-sectional study employed a mixed-method approach, with qualitative and quantitative components. Seven IRBs were purposively sampled from the 15 accredited IRBs operational in Tanzania during the study period, April 2017–April 2018. Quantitative data were analysed using STATA software and qualitative data were analysed thematically. Results . The median time for review across all IRBs was 32 days, with a range of 1–396 days. Qualitative results identified five key themes related to turnaround time from interviews with participants. These included: (1) procedures for receiving and distribution of protocols, (2) number of reviewers assigned to protocols, (3) duration of reviewing protocols, (4) reasons for delayed feedback, and (5) training of research ethics committee members. Conclusion. The study showed that the median days for ethical approval in Tanzania was 32 days. We observed from this study that electronic submission systems facilitated faster turnaround times. Failure to adhere to the submission checklists and guidelines was a major obstacle to the turnaround time.

Keywords

turnaround time ethical review in Tanzania constraints and enablers of turnaround time institution review boards in Tanzania delays in approval process

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adams

Kaewkungwal

Prakobtham

Pengsaa

Khusmith

(2014). Is your ethics committee efficient? Using “IRB metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the faculty of tropical medicine, mahidol university, Thailand. PloS One, 9(11), e113356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113356

Ahmed

Nicholson

K. G.

(1996). Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. Journal of Medical Ethics, 22(5), 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.5.263

America

I. D. S. O

. (2009). Grinding to a halt: The effects of the increasing regulatory burden on research and quality improvement efforts. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 49(3), 328–335. https://doi.org/10.1086/605454

Angell

E. L.

Bryman

Ashcroft

R. E.

Dixon-Woods

(2008). An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: The ethics/scientific quality boundary examined. BMJ Quality & Safety, 17(2), 131–136. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2007.022756

Ashcraft

M. H.

Krause

J. A.

(2007). Social and behavioral researchers’ experiences with their IRBs. Ethics & Behavior, 17(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508420701309614

Barchi

Kasimatis Singleton

Merz

J. F.

(2014). Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(5), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.892168

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa

Caligiuri

Allen

Buscher

Denney

Gates

Kantelo

Magit

Sak

Firestein

G. S.

Fontanesi

. (2017). A multisite study of performance drivers among institutional review boards. Journal of Clinical And Translational Science, 1(3), 192–197. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2017.8

Candilis

P. J. L.

Arnold

C. W.

Robert

(2006). The need to understand IRB deliberations. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 28(1): 1–5.

10.

Christian

M. C.

Goldberg

J. L.

Killen

Abrams

J. S.

Mc Cabe

M. S.

Mauer

J. K.

Wittes

R. E.

(2002). A central institutional review board for multi-institutional trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(18), 1405–1408. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM200205023461814

11.

Clarke

D. L

. (2014). Auditing the process of ethics approval for master’s degrees at a South African university. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law, 7(1), 23–25. https://doi.org/10.7196/SAJBL.301

12.

Cleaton-Jones

. (2010). Process error rates in general research applications to the human research ethics committee (medical) at the university of the witwatersrand: A secondary data analysis. South African Journal of Bioethics and Law 3(1), 20–24.

13.

Diyamett

Szogs

Makundi

(2010). The making of the Tanzanian science, technology and innovation system: Past, present and proposed future direction. International Conference: Making Innovation Work for Society.

14.

Emanuel

E. J.

Wendler

Killen

Grady

(2004). What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. Journal of Infectious Diseases, 189(5), 930–937. https://doi.org/10.1086/381709

15.

Etikan

Musa

S. A.

Alkassim

R. S.

(2016). Comparison of convenience sampling and purposive sampling. American Journal of Theoretical and Applied Statistics 5(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajtas.20160501.11

16.

Fontanesi

Magit

Ford

J. J.

Nguyen

Firestein

G. S.

(2018). Systems approach to assessing and improving local human research institutional review board performance. Journal of Clinical and Translational Science, 2(2), 103–109. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2018.24

17.

General Assembly of the World Medical Association. (2014). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. The Journal of the American College of Dentists, 81(3), 14–18.

18.

Getz

K. A.

Zuckerman

Cropp

A. B.

Hindle

A. L.

Krauss

Kaitin

K. I.

(2011). Measuring the incidence, causes, and repercussions of protocol amendments. Drug Information Journal: DIJ/Drug Information Association, 45(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/009286151104500307

19.

Gold

J. L.

Dewa

C. S.

(2005). Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: Is there a better way? Health Services Research, 40(1), 291–308. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00354.x

20.

Grady

. (2015). Institutional review boards: Purpose and challenges. Chest, 148(5), 1148–1155. https://doi.org/10.1378/chest.15-0706

21.

Greene

S. M.

Geiger

A. M.

(2006). A review finds that multicenter studies face substantial challenges but strategies exist to achieve institutional review board approval. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 59(8), 784–790. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.018

22.

Hyman

D. A

. (2007). Institutional review boards: Is this the least worst we can do. Nw. UL Rev, 101(2), 749–774.

23.

Ikingura

Kruger

Zeleke

(2007). Health research ethics review and needs of institutional ethics committees in Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Health Research, 9(3), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.4314/thrb.v9i3.14320

24.

Jamrozik

. (2004). Research ethics paperwork: What is the plot we seem to have lost? Bmj, 329(7460), 286–287. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7460.286

25.

Kano

Getrich

C. M.

Romney

Sussman

A. L.

Williams

R. L.

(2015). Costs and inconsistencies in US IRB review of low-risk medical education research. Medical Education, 49(6), 634–637. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12693

26.

Kass

N. E.

Hyder

A. A.

Ajuwon

Appiah-Poku

Barsdorf

Elsayed

D. E.

Mokhachane

Mupenda

Ndebele

Ndossi

Sikateyo

Tangwa

Tindana

(2007). The structure and function of research ethics committees in Africa: A case study. PLoS Medicine, 4(1), e3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040003

27.

Kawar

L. N.

Pugh

D. M.

Scruth

E. A.

(2016). Understanding the role and legal requirements of the institutional review board. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 30(3), 137–140. https://doi.org/10.1097/NUR.0000000000000197

28.

Klitzman

. (2008). Views of the process and content of ethical reviews of HIV vaccine trials among members of US institutional review boards and South African research ethics committees. Developing World Bioethics, 8(3), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2007.00189.x

29.

Klitzman

. (2012). From anonymity to “open doors”: IRB responses to tensions with researchers. BMC Research Notes, 5(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-0500-5-347

30.

Kramer

Guillory

D. J. E.

Hancock

J. T.

(2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111

31.

Krefting

. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 45(3), 214–222. https://doi.org/10.5014/ajot.45.3.214

32.

Kruger

Ndebele

Horn

(eds.) (2014). Research ethics in Africa: A resource for research ethics committees. Stellenbosch: SUN MeDIA. https://doi.org/10.18820/9781920689315

33.

Kuyare

Marathe

Shetty

Y. C.

Kamat

S. K.

Katkar

J. V.

Thatte

U. M.

(2014). Projects not initiated by investigators: A retrospective analysis of the queries raised by the institutional ethics committees of a teaching hospital. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine, 60(1), 46. https://doi.org/10.4103/0022-3859.128808

34.

Liddle

B. J.

Brazelton

E. W

(1996). Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 18(6), 4–6.

35.

Lidz

C. W.

Appelbaum

P. S.

Arnold

Candilis

Gardner

Myers

Simon

(2012). How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine, 87(7), 969. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e

36.

Lidz

C. W.

Garverich

(2013). What the ANPRM missed: Additional needs for IRB reform. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications Sage CA. https://doi.org/10.1111/jlme.12050

37.

Magesa

S. M.

Mwape

Mboera

L. E.

(2011). Challenges and opportunities in building health research capacity in Tanzania: A case of the national institute for medical research. Tanzania Journal of Health Research, 13(5).

38.

Mamotte

Wassenaar

(2009). Ethics review in a developing country: A survey of South African social scientists’ experiences. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 4(4), 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2009.4.4.69

39.

Marsh

McMaster

Parvizi

Katz

S. I.

Spindler

(2008). AOA Symposium: Barriers (threats) to clinical research. The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American Volume. 90(8), 1769. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.G.01422

40.

Mashalla

Y. J. S.

Shija

J. K.

Kitua

A. Y.

Mwaikambo

Kohi

Y. M.

Ndossi

G. D.

Malecela

Mboera

L. E. G.

(2009). Guidelines of ethics for health research in Tanzania. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Tanzania National Health Research Forum.

41.

Maskell

Jones

Davies

R. J.

(2003). Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. QJM, 96(4), 305–307. https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hcg042

42.

Millum

Menikoff

(2010). Streamlining ethical review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 153(10), 655–657. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-153-10-201011160-00008

43.

Mokgatla

IJsselmuiden

Wassenaar

Kasule

(2018). Mapping research ethics committees in Africa: Evidence of the growth of ethics review of health research in Africa. Developing World Bioethics, 18(4), 341–348. https://doi.org/10.1111/dewb.12146

44.

Moore

J. B.

(2012). An IRB transformation: Increasing quality and efficiency using existing resources. Journal of Research Administration, 43(2), 69.

45.

Morse

J. M

. (2016). Mixed method design: Principles and procedures. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315424538

46.

Ndebele

. (2011). “Research ethics.” The SAGE handbook of health care ethics. London: SAGE: 306–325.

47.

Ndebele

Wassenaar

Benatar

Fleischer

Kruger

Adebamowo

Kass

Hyder

A. A.

Meslin

E. M.

(2014). Research ethics capacity building in Sub-saharan Africa: A review of NIH fogarty-funded programs 2000–2012. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(2), 24–40. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2014.9.2.24

48.

Nelson

(2013). Assessing efficiency in working with an IRB. Journal of Clinical Research Best Practice 9, 1–4.

49.

Nesom

G. L.

Petrof

Moore

T. M.

(2019). Operational characteristics of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 10(4), 276–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/23294515.2019.1670276

50.

Nolen

A. L.

Putten

J. V.

(2007). Action research in education: Addressing gaps in ethical principles and practices. Educational Researcher, 36(7), 401–407.

51.

Nxumalo

B. C

. (2017). An examination of timelines in the expedited ethics review process at the University of KwaZulu-Natal, biomedical research ethics committee.

52.

Nyeboer

Page

S. A.

(2017). Improving the process of research ethics review.

53.

Nyika

Kilama

Chilengi

Tangwa

Tindana

Ndebele

Ikingura

(2009). Composition, training needs and independence of ethics review committees across Africa: Are the gate-keepers rising to the emerging challenges? Journal of Medical Ethics, 35(3), 189–193. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2008.025189

54.

Onwuegbuzie

A. J.

Johnson

R. B.

(2006). The validity issue in mixed research. Research in the Schools, 13(1), 48–63.

55.

Petersen

L. A.

Simpson

Sorelle

Urech

Chitwood

S. S.

(2012). How variability in the institutional review board review process affects minimal-risk multisite health services research. Annals of Internal Medicine, 156(10), 728–735. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-156-10-201205150-00011

56.

Rikkert

M. O.

Lauque

Frölich

Vellas

Dekkers

(2005). The practice of obtaining approval from medical research ethics committees: A comparison within 12 european countries for a descriptive study on acetylcholinesterase inhibitors in alzheimer’s dementia. European Journal of Neurology, 12(3), 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-1331.2004.00980.x

57.

Schwenzer

K. J

. (2008). Practical tips for working effectively with your institutional review board. Respiratory Care, 53(10), 1354–1361.

58.

Silaigwana

Wassenaar

(2015). Biomedical research ethics committees in sub-saharan Africa: A collective review of their structure, functioning, and outcomes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 10(2), 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615575511

59.

Silberman

Kahn

K. L.

(2011). Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: The state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. The Milbank Quarterly, 89(4), 599–627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2011.00644.x

60.

Silverman

. (2013). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook . SAGE Publications Limited.

61.

Silverman

Hull

S. C.

Sugarman

(2001). Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Critical Care Medicine, 29(2), 235. https://doi.org/10.1097/00003246-200102000-00002

62.

StataCorp, L. (2007). STATA data analysis and statistical software. Special Edition Release 10, 733.

63.

Straight

T. M

. (2009). Clinical research regulation: Challenges to the institutional review board system. Clinics in Dermatology, 27(4), 375–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2009.02.012

64.

Tanzania Commission for Science and Technology. (2015). Institutional Review Boards Survey Report. Retrieved from http://www.costech.or.tz/documents-and-publications.

65.

Tashakkori

Teddlie

(2010). Sage handbook of mixed methods in social & behavioral research, SAGE.

66.

Thomas

S. B.

Quinn

S. C

(1991). The tuskegee syphilis study, 1932 to 1972: Implications for HIV education and AIDS risk education programs in the black community. American Journal of Public Health, 81(11), 1498–1505. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.81.11.1498

67.

Wald

D. S

. (2004). Bureaucracy of ethics applications. BMJ 329(7460), 282–284. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.329.7460.282

68.

Warlow

. (2004). Clinical research under the cosh again , British Medical Journal Publishing Group.

69.

Wassenaar

D. R.

Slack

C. M.

(2016). How to learn to love your research ethics committee: Recommendations for psychologists. South African Journal of Psychology, 46(3), 306–315.

70.

World Medical Association . (2001). World medical association declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 79(4), 373.