Simple jQuery Dropdowns
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Title: Current status of the research ethics committees in Thailand
Authors: Suthee Panichkul
Punkae Mahaisavariya
Nimit Morakote
Sumalee Condo
Supak Caengow
Aphronpirom Ketunpanya
Phramongkutklao College of Medicine
Mahidol University
Chiang Mai University
Faculty of Medicine, Thammasat University
Forum for Ethical Review Committee in Thailand (FERCIT)
Keywords: Medicine
Issue Date: 1-Aug-2011
Citation: Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand. Vol.94, No.8 (2011), 1013-1018
Abstract: Background: Many research ethics committees (RECs) have been established to review biomedical research involving human subjects in many research institutes. The purpose is "To protect rights and welfare of human research participants". It is necessary to determine how many research ethics committees have been established in Thailand and whether they have a high enough standard to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. Objective: To determine the status of research ethics committees in Thailand. Material and Method: One hundred thirty survey questionnaires were distributed by mail to medical schools of universities, public hospitals under the Ministry of Public Health, private hospitals, and research institutes. Results: Seventy-eight questionnaires were returned. Thirty respondents had standard Operating Procedures (SOP). Twentytwo RECs had their own office while 36 had to share the office with other departments or units. Board meeting frequency was once a month. The average number of committee members was 14 and the majority was scientific members. Absence of nonaffiliated members was found in RECs (20.6%). Thirty RECs had never provided training for REC members and investigators, the other 48 provided training at least once a year. Decision are made by consensus in 51 and majority vote in 14 RECs. Twenty-two respondents managed conflicts of interest (COI) by asking those members to leave the meeting before a decision was finalized. Thirty-nine RECs required continuous review after approval of the protocols. Conclusion: Strong support from the organization leader is a key factor to efficiency and high standards of REC operation. Developing a network of RECs will be useful for future development. REC members still need knowledge to better protect the rights, safety, and well-being of research participants.
ISSN: 01252208
Appears in Collections:Scopus 2011-2015

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.

Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.