medigraphic.com
Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública

2022, Número 1

<< Anterior Siguiente >>

salud publica mex 2022; 64 (1)


Funcionamiento de los comités de ética en investigación en Colombia, Costa Rica, Guatemala y México: Proyecto Mesoamericano

Ángeles-Llerenas A, Thrasher JF, Domínguez-Esponda R, López-Ridaura R, Macklin R

Idioma: Ingles.
Referencias bibliográficas: 31
Paginas: 66-75
Archivo PDF: 253.45 Kb.


RESUMEN

Objetivo. Comprender la estructura y procesos de los Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEI) en países mesoamericanos de ingresos bajos y medios. Conocer las prácticas operativas en evaluación de proyectos, necesidades de capacitación e infraestructura. Material y métodos. Encuesta en línea para evaluar necesidades de capacitación de los CEI (n=55) identificados en Colombia (n=11), Costa Rica (n=5), Guatemala (n=5) y México (n=34). Resultados. Los participantes reportaron una infraestructura inadecuada para su correcto funcionamiento (oficina exclusiva para archivos 49.1%, 27/55); personal administrativo insuficiente (47.3%, 26/55), recursos financieros insuficientes para monitoreo del sitio (85.6%, 47/55), para garantizar protección de derechos y bienestar de los participantes. Conclusiones. Se necesita invertir en capacitación de los miembros e infraestructura del CEI, para garantizar la conducción ética de la investigación.


REFERENCIAS (EN ESTE ARTÍCULO)

  1. Saenz C, Heitman E, Luna F, Litewka S, Goodman KW, Macklin R. Twelve years of Fogarty-funded bioethics training in Latin America and the Caribbean: achievements and challenges. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9(2):80-91. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2014.9.2.80

  2. National Institutes of Health. International Fogarty Center. Maryland: NIH [cited January 14, 2021]. Available from: https://www.fic.nih.gov/ Grants/Search/Pages/search-grants.aspx?program=bioet70

  3. UNESCO/Redbioética [cited August 3, 2021]. Available from: https:// redbioetica.com.ar//

  4. Hyder AA, Wali SA, Khan AN, Teoh NB, Kass NE, Dawson L. Ethical review of health research: a perspective from developing country researchers. J Med Ethics. 2004;30(1):68-72. https://doi.org/10.1136/ jme.2002.001933

  5. Coleman CH, Bouësseau MC. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Med Ethics. 2008;9:6. https://doi. org/10.1186/1472-6939-9-6

  6. Lamas E, Ferrer M, Molina A, Salinas R, Hevia A, Bota A, et al. A comparative analysis of biomedical research ethics regulation systems in Europe and Latin America with regard to the protection of human subjects. J Med Ethics. 2010;36(12):750-3. https://doi.org/10.1136/ jme.2009.035097

  7. Silberman G, Kahn KL. Burdens on research imposed by institutional review boards: the state of the evidence and its implications for regulatory reform. Milbank Q. 2011;89(4):599-627. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- 0009.2011.00644.x

  8. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, Beck S, Beaty T, Cutting G. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA. 2003;290(3):360-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/ jama.290.3.360

  9. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, Weisman CS, Levine DW, Scholle SH. Variations among Institutional Review Board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(1):279-90. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00353.x

  10. Emanuel EJ, Wood A, Fleischman A, Bowen A, Getz KA, Grady C, et al. Oversight of human participants research: identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals. Ann Intern Med. 2004;141(4):282-91. https://doi. org/10.7326/0003-4819-141-4-200408170-00008

  11. Rodriguez E, Lolas F. The Topic of Research Integrity in Latinamerica. Bioethikos. 2011;5(4):362-8. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/22679532

  12. Whitney SN, Alcser K, Schneider C, McCullough LB, McGuire AL, Volk RJ. Principal investigator views of the IRB system. Int J Med Sci. 2008;5(2):68-72. https://doi.org/10.7150/ijms.5.68

  13. Research Ethics Committee Assessment Toolkit (RECAT) [cited January 19,2021]. Available from: https://bioethics.jhu.edu/recat/

  14. Ángeles-Llerenas A. Questionnaire research ethics committee members. figshare. Online resource 2021. https://doi.org/10.6084/ m9.figshare.14082848.v1

  15. Ángeles-Llerenas A. Appendix A. figshare. Dataset 2021. https://doi. org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14757960.v2

  16. Ángeles-Llerenas A. Suplemmentary tables 2-3. figshare. Dataset 2021. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14758071.v2

  17. Normile D. Ethics. Clinical trials guidelines at odds with U.S. policy. Science. 2008;322(5901):516. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 322.5901.516

  18. Center Watch. Center Watch Web Page. Virginia: WCG [cited January 15, 2020]. Available from: https://www.centerwatch.com/clinical-trials/listings/ location/

  19. NIH. U. S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials Web Page [cited January 21, 2020]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results/ map?type=Intr&fund=01&map=

  20. World Health Organization, Panamerican Health Organization. Standards and Operational Guidance for Ethics Review of Health- Related Research with Human Participants. Washington DC: WHO, PAO, 2012 [cited February 4, 2020]. Available from: https://apps. who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/89644/9789275317259_spa. pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y&ua=1

  21. Rueda-Martínez GR, Monsores de Sá N. Impacto de la ausencia del Consejo Nacional de Bioética Colombiano. Rev Latinoamericana Bioética. 2015;2(22):144-55. https://doi.org/10.18359/rlbi.542

  22. Minciencias. Lineamientos mínimos para la conformación y funcionamiento de comités de ética en investigación en Colombia. Gobierno de Colombia: Colciencias, 2020 [cited December 13, 2020]. Available from: https://minciencias.gov.co/sites/default/files/upload/paginas/evento_1_documento_ 02_octubre_lineamientos_minimos_cei_red_version_05_septiembre. pdf

  23. Chattopadhyay S, Myser C, Moxham T, De Vries R. A Question of Social Justice: How Policies of Profit Negate Engagement of Developing World Bioethicists and Undermine Global Bioethics. Am J Bioeth. 2017;17(10):3- 14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.1365185

  24. Davis S. Monitoring of approved studies: A difficult tightrope walk by Ethics Committees. Perspect Clin Res. 2018;9(2):91-4. https://doi. org/10.4103/picr.PICR_51_18

  25. Tripathi RK, Marathe PA, Kapse SV, Shetty YC, Kamat SK, Thatte UM. Serious adverse events reports: analysis and outcome of review by an institutional ethics committee of a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai, India. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2016;11(3):267-73. https://doi. org/10.1177/1556264616654809

  26. Jalgaonkar SV, Bhide SS, Tripathi RK, Shetty YC, Marathe PA, Katkar J, et al. An Audit of Protocol Deviations Submitted to an Institutional Ethics Committee of a Tertiary Care Hospital. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0146334. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0146334

  27. Matar A, Silverman H. Perspectives of Egyptian research ethics committees regarding their effective functioning. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013;8(1):32-44. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2013.8.1.32

  28. Adams P, Kaewkungwal J, Limphattharacharoen C, Prakobtham S, Pengsaa K, Khusmith S. Is your ethics committee efficient? Using “IRB Metrics” as a self-assessment tool for continuous improvement at the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, Thailand. PLoS One. 2014;9(11):e113356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113356

  29. Romero-Zepeda H. La CREEI y los retos de la capacitación en bioética ante nuevos y complejos dilemas de salud. Rev Med Electron. 2017;39(6):10. Available from: http://www.revmedicaelectronica.sld.cu/ index.php/rme/article/view/2116/3647

  30. Organización Mundial de la Salud, Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Plataforma ProEthos para la revisión ética de la investigación en sujetos humanos. Geneva: WHO/PAHO [cited December 13, 2020]. Available from: https://www.paho.org/es/plataforma-proethos-para-revision- etica-investigacion-sujetos-humanos

  31. Macklin R. Allocating medical resources fairly:the CSG bioethics guide. Salud Publica Mex. 2020;62(5):590-2. https://doi. org/10.21149/11486




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com