Challenges in the Ethical Review of Clinical and Biomedical Research in Malaysia: A Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

Empirical evidence of the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research in Malaysia is limited. We have conducted a convergent mixed methods research, which comprises an online survey and semistructured interviews to examine the challenges in the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research. Data collected reveal that the ethics review process is inconsistent, duplicate, and inadequate. The results indicate a strong need for a centralized ethical review mechanism and a national system for mutual recognition of ethics reviews to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ethics review system in Malaysia. A joint research ethics committee review between Malaysia and sponsoring countries for multinational research should also be encouraged as it could address the concerns of the lack of expertise and training.

Keywords

ethical review clinical trials biomedical research challenges research ethics committee Malaysia

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ali

Kass

N. E.

Sewankambo

N. K.

White

T. D.

Hyder

A. A.

(2014). Evaluating international research ethics capacity development: An empirical approach. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 9(2), 41–51. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2014.9.2.41

Ateudjieu

Williams

Hirtle

Baume

Ikingura

Niaré

Sprumont

(2010). Training needs assessment in research ethics evaluation among research ethics committee members in three African countries: Cameroon, Mali and Tanzania. Developing World Bioethics, 10(2), 88–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2009.00266.x

Barchi

Matlhagela

Jones

Kebaabetswe

P. M.

Merz

J. F.

(2015). “The keeping is the problem”: A qualitative study of IRB-member perspectives in Botswana on the collection, use, and storage of human biological samples for research. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 54. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0047-3

Barchi

Singleton

M. K.

Merz

J. F.

(2014). Fostering IRB collaboration for review of international research. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(5), 3–8. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730902873927

Bhowmick

Banerjee

Sikdar

Chatterjee

T. K.

(2014). An evaluation of knowledge, attitude, and practice of institutional ethics committee members from eastern India regarding ethics committee functioning and pharmacovigilance activities conducted during clinical trials: A pilot study. Perspectives in Clinical Research, 5(3), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.134310

Cairoli

Davies

H. T.

Helm

Hook

Knupfer

Wells

(2012). A syllabus for research ethics committees: Training needs and resources in different European countries. Journal of Medical Ethics, 38(3), 184–186. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2011-100064

Camp

J. W.

Barfield

R. C.

Rodriguez

Young

A. J.

Finerman

Caniza

M. A.

(2009). Challenges faced by research ethics committees in El Salvador: Results from a focus group study. Developing World Bioethics, 9(1), 11–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2007.00225.x

Chenneville

Menezes

Kosambiya

Baxi

(2016). A case-study of the resources and functioning of two research ethics committees in western India. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(5), 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268814002131

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications Inc.

10.

Dauda

Dierickx

(2014). One size that could fit all: IRBs joint review collaboration as the key to addressing the challenges of multinational research review involving resource-poor countries. The American Journal of Bioethics, 14(5), 15–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2014.892170

11.

Davies

Wells

Druml

(2008). How can we provide effective training for research ethics committee members? A European assessment. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(4), 301–302. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2007.021485

12.

Dove

E. S.

Garattini

(2018). Expert perspectives on ethics review of international data-intensive research: Working towards mutual recognition. Research Ethics, 14(1). 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117711972

13.

Dove

E. S.

Townend

Meslin

E. M.

Bobrow

Littler

Nicol

Vries

J. D.

Junker

Garattini

Bovenberg

Shabani

Levesque

Knoppers

B. M.

(2016). Ethics review for international data-intensive research. Science (New York, NY), 351(6280), 1399–1400. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad5269

14.

Emanuel

E. J.

Wood

Fleischman

Bowen

Getz

K. A.

Grady

Levine

Hammerschmidt

D. E.

Faden

Eckenwiler

Muse

C. T.

Sugarman

(2004). Oversight of human participants research: Identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Annals of Internal Medicine, 141(4), 282–291. https://doi.org/VL - 141.

15.

Hooi Yan

Mohd Salim

Siti Nurani

M. N.

Wah Yun

(2019). Addressing procedural challenges of ethical review system: Towards a better ethical quality of clinical trials review in Malaysia. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 26(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2018.1556646

16.

Hyder

A. A.

Ali

Hallez

White

Sewankambo

N. K.

Kass

N. E.

(2015). Exploring institutional research ethics systems: A case study from Uganda. AJOB Empirical Bioethics, 6(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3121.ChIP-nexus

17.

Hyder

A. A.

Dawson

Bachani

A. M.

Lavery

J. V.

(2009). Moving from research ethics review to research ethics systems in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet (London, England), 373(9666), 862–865. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(09)60488-8

18.

Janakiram

Venkitachalam

Joseph

(2016). Profile of institutional ethics committees in dental teaching institutions in Kerala, India. Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance, 23(4), 219–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2015.1114887

19.

Kaur

(2011). The adequacy of the ethics review process in Malaysia: protection of the interests of mentally incapacitated adults who enrol in clinical trials (Doctoral Theses). Retrieved from https://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1324539/1/1324539.pdf.

20.

Kennedy

S. B.

Harris

A. O.

Oudemans

Young

Kollie

Nelson

E. S.

Nisbett

R. A.

Morris

Bartee

George-Williams

Jones

(2006). Developing capacity to protect human research subjects in a post-conflict, resource-constrained setting: Procedures and prospects. Journal of Medical Ethics, 32(10), 592–595. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.2005.014472

21.

Kochhar

(2013). Challenges and impact of conducting vaccine trials in Asia and Africa. Human Vaccines and Immunotherapeutic, 9(4), 924–927. https://doi.org/10.4161/hv.23405

22.

Matar

Silverman

(2013). Perspectives of Egyptian research ethics committees regarding their effective functioning. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(1), 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pestbp.2011.02.012

23.

McIntosh

Sierra

Dozier

Diaz

Quiñones

Primack

Chadwick

Ossip-Klein

D. J.

(2008). Ethical review issues in collaborative research between US and low-middle income country partners: A case example. Bioethics, 22(8), 414–422. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00662.x

24.

Motari

Ota

M. O.

Kirigia

J. M.

(2015). Readiness of ethics review systems for a changing public health landscape in the WHO African region. BMC Medical Ethics, 16(1), 82. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0078-9

25.

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

26.

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

27.

Palinkas

L. A.

Horwitz

S. M.

Green

C. A.

Wisdom

J. P.

Duan

Hoagwood

(2015). Purposeful sampling for qualitative data collection and analysis in mixed method implementation research. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 42(5), 533–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0528-y

28.

Ravinetto

Buvé

Halidou

Lutumba

Talisuna

Juffrie

D'Alessandro

Boelaert

(2011). Double ethical review of north–south collaborative clinical research: Hidden paternalism or real partnership? Tropical Medicine and International Health, 16(4), 527–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3156.2011.02732.x

29.

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

30.

Silverman

Edwards

Shamoo

Matar

(2013). Enhancing research ethics capacity in the Middle East: Experience and challenges of a Fogarty-sponsored training program. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 8(5), 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.5.40

31.

Silverman

Sleem

Moodley

Kumar

Naidoo

Subramanian

, … M.

Moni

(2015). Results of a self-assessment tool to assess the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Medical Ethics, 41(4), 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101587

32.

Simpson

Khatri

Ravindran

Udalagama

(2015). Pharmaceuticalisation and ethical review in south Asia: Issues of scope and authority for practitioners and policymakers. Social Science & Medicine, 131, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.03.016

33.

Sleem

Abdelhai

R. A. A.

Al-Abdallat

Al-Naif

Gabr

H. M.

Kehil

Sadiq

B. B.

Yousri

Elsayed

Sulaiman

Silverman

(2010). Development of an accessible self-assessment tool for research ethics committees in developing countries. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 5(3), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.85

34.

Suzuki

Sato

(2016). Description and evaluation of the research ethics review process in Japan: Proposed measures for improvement. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 11(3), 256–266. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616660644

35.

Taylor

H. A.

(2007). Moving beyond compliance: Measuring ethical quality to enhance the oversight of human subjects research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research, 29(5), 9–14. PMID: 17969778.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB