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

Клики: 350
ID: 262482
2020
Метрики качества и эффективности статьи
Общее качество
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.
Оценка качества ИИ
Не проанализировано
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
Аннотация
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.
Ссылочный ключ
ssali2020experiencesinternational Используйте этот ключ для автоцитирования в рукописи при использовании SciMatic Manuscript Manager или Thesis Manager
Авторы Ssali, Agnes;Poland, Fiona;Seeley, Janet;
Журнал International health
Год 2020
DOI
10.1093/inthealth/ihaa047
URL
Ключевые слова

Цитирования

Цитирования не найдены. Чтобы добавить цитирование, свяжитесь с администратором по адресу info@scimatic.org

Комментариев пока нет. Будьте первым, кто прокомментирует эту статью.