IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0309084.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool

Author

Listed:
  • Nathan Gabriel Sattah
  • Vincent D’Anniballe
  • Hoang Tu Le
  • Luyen Thi Le
  • Thanh Ngoc Le
  • Thom Thi Vu
  • Viengsakhone Louangpradith
  • Walter T Lee

Abstract

Background: There is an increase in human subject research in developing countries and conducting them in an ethical manner depends on the research ethics oversight in these countries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operational, financial, and educational characteristics of research ethics committees (RECs) at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. Methods: A validated self-assessment tool designed to assess nine major characteristics of RECs was translated into Vietnamese and Laotian. The translated surveys were delivered to and completed by representatives from RECs at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. The surveys were collected, translated back into English, and scored. The data was analyzed to identify potential areas of strength and areas for improvement. Results: The mean survey score for the 19 RECs surveyed was 165.3 out of a maximum of 200 points with a standard deviation of 22.9. Committees scored the highest in the review of specific protocol items (95.6%), submission arrangements and materials (89.5%), and the policies referring to review procedures (85.6%) domains. RECs scored the lowest in the resources domain (65.5%), with only 26.3% of committees having an annual budget. Nearly all RECs have standard operating procedures (94.7%) and policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (89.5%). Most committees use prior ethics training as a criterion to select REC chairs (78.9%) and members (73.7%), with the majority of committees requiring a training course in ethics (76.5%). 68.4% of committees have continuing education in ethics for members and only 42.1% of committees have a budget for member training. Conclusion: This study demonstrated that RECs in Vietnam and Laos have strong foundational review processes for research protocols. Important areas of improvement include improved institutional oversight, financial and administrative resources, and the continued ethics education for current committee members.

Suggested Citation

  • Nathan Gabriel Sattah & Vincent D’Anniballe & Hoang Tu Le & Luyen Thi Le & Thanh Ngoc Le & Thom Thi Vu & Viengsakhone Louangpradith & Walter T Lee, 2024. "Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(8), pages 1-11, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309084
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0309084
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309084
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0309084&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0309084?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0309084. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.