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.
AliJ.KassN. E.SewankamboN. K.WhiteT. D.HyderA. 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
2.
AteudjieuJ.WilliamsJ.HirtleM.BaumeC.IkinguraJ.NiaréA.SprumontD. (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
3.
BarchiF.MatlhagelaK.JonesN.KebaabetsweP. M.MerzJ. 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
4.
BarchiF.SingletonM. K.MerzJ. 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
5.
BhowmickS.BanerjeeK.SikdarS.ChatterjeeT. 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
6.
CairoliE.DaviesH. T.HelmJ.HookG.KnupferP.WellsF. (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
7.
CampJ. W.BarfieldR. C.RodriguezV.YoungA. J.FinermanR.CanizaM. 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
8.
ChennevilleT.MenezesL.KosambiyaJ.BaxiR. (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
9.
CreswellJ. W.Plano ClarkV. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE Publications Inc.
10.
DaudaB.DierickxK. (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.
DaviesH.WellsF.DrumlC. (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.
DoveE. S.GarattiniC. (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.
DoveE. S.TownendD.MeslinE. M.BobrowM.LittlerK.NicolD.VriesJ. D.JunkerA.GarattiniC.BovenbergJ.ShabaniM.LevesqueE.KnoppersB. 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.
EmanuelE. J.WoodA.FleischmanA.BowenA.GetzK. A.GradyC.LevineC.HammerschmidtD. E.FadenR.EckenwilerL.MuseC. T.SugarmanJ. (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 YanS.Mohd SalimM.Siti NuraniM. N.Wah YunL. (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.
HyderA. A.AliJ.HallezK.WhiteT.SewankamboN. K.KassN. 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.
HyderA. A.DawsonL.BachaniA. M.LaveryJ. 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.
JanakiramC.VenkitachalamR.JosephJ. (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.
KaurS. (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 fromhttps://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/1324539/1/1324539.pdf.
20.
KennedyS. B.HarrisA. O.OudemansE.YoungL.KollieJ.NelsonE. S.NisbettR. A.MorrisC.BarteeN.George-WilliamsE.JonesJ. (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.
KochharS. (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.
MatarA.SilvermanH. (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.
McIntoshS.SierraE.DozierA.DiazS.QuiñonesZ.PrimackA.ChadwickG.Ossip-KleinD. 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.
MotariM.OtaM. O.KirigiaJ. 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.
NdebeleP.WassenaarD.BenatarS.FleischerT.KrugerM.AdebamowoC.KassN.HyderA. A.MeslinE. 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.
NyikaA.KilamaW.ChilengiR.TangwaG.TindanaP.NdebeleP.IkinguraJ. (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.
PalinkasL. A.HorwitzS. M.GreenC. A.WisdomJ. P.DuanN.HoagwoodK. (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.
RavinettoR.BuvéA.HalidouT.LutumbaP.TalisunaA.JuffrieM.D'AlessandroU.BoelaertM. (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.
SilaigwanaB.WassenaarD. (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.
SilvermanH.EdwardsH.ShamooA.MatarA. (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.
SilvermanH.SleemH.MoodleyK.KumarN.NaidooS.SubramanianT., … 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.
SimpsonB.KhatriR.RavindranD.UdalagamaT. (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.
SleemH.AbdelhaiR. A. A.Al-AbdallatI.Al-NaifM.GabrH. M.KehilE.SadiqB. B.YousriR.ElsayedD.SulaimanS.SilvermanH. (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.
SuzukiM.SatoK. (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.
TaylorH. 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.
