Experiences of research ethics committee members and scientists of the research protocol review process in Uganda: a case study.

Clicks: 355
ID: 262482
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #2 of 4 articles by views in International health

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
We investigated how relevant and responsive scientists and research ethics committee (REC) members considered the research protocol review processes for health research practice in Uganda.Interviews were conducted with five scientists and five REC members. Data were analysed thematically.How much to compensate for time, the amount of study information shared with volunteers and sample storage for future unknown research were areas of concern for REC members. Delays in getting feedback concerned scientists.Researchers and REC members need to hold regular discussions to ensure the review process is relevant and responsive.
Reference Key
ssali2020experiencesinternational Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Ssali, Agnes;Poland, Fiona;Seeley, Janet;
Journal International health
Year 2020
DOI
10.1093/inthealth/ihaa047
URL
Keywords
research review uganda ethics committee protocol process

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.