국가연구개발과제 생명의학윤리 감독체계에 대한 인식조사 및 제언
Perceptions held by Investigators, IRB Members and IRB Administrators on the Bioethical Oversight System of National R&D Projects
1
조회
0
다운로드
3
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Purpose: Aim of this study was to gather and evaluate perceptions of investigators, IRB members, and IRB administratorson the appropriateness of IRB review process and bioethical oversight system of national R&D (NR&D) projects. Method: Investigators, IRB members, and IRB administrators at 17 different institutions were surveyed using conveniencesampling and survey questionnaires were partially group-specialized to consider any differences between thegroups. Results: Participants included 29 investigators, 37 IRB members, and 17 administrators with response rate of100% (83 of 83). According to the responses obtained, insufficient preparation time for constructing protocol and gainingIRB approval was one of the main problems in the IRB review process (investigator 79.3%, IRB administrator88.2%). Also, discrepancy between NR&D and IRB’s protocol formats was another major issue (IRB members 96.4%,IRB administrator 100%) and most investigators (89.7%) had to modify the original NR&D protocol to obtain IRBapproval. Moreover, it was reported that 13.8% of investigators and 31.3% of IRB administrators did not submit midyearreports to IRB and for bioethical issues of NR&D projects, 17.2% of investigators did not include information onproject status and safety issues in the annual reports. Conclusion: In conclusion, for successful and ethical completionof R&D projects, revision of both IRB review process and NR&D project protocol formats as well as implementationof appropriate bioethical oversights are necessary.
Abstract
Purpose: Aim of this study was to gather and evaluate perceptions of investigators, IRB members, and IRB administratorson the appropriateness of IRB review process and bioethical oversight system of national R&D (NR&D) projects. Method: Investigators, IRB members, and IRB administrators at 17 different institutions were surveyed using conveniencesampling and survey questionnaires were partially group-specialized to consider any differences between thegroups. Results: Participants included 29 investigators, 37 IRB members, and 17 administrators with response rate of100% (83 of 83). According to the responses obtained, insufficient preparation time for constructing protocol and gainingIRB approval was one of the main problems in the IRB review process (investigator 79.3%, IRB administrator88.2%). Also, discrepancy between NR&D and IRB’s protocol formats was another major issue (IRB members 96.4%,IRB administrator 100%) and most investigators (89.7%) had to modify the original NR&D protocol to obtain IRBapproval. Moreover, it was reported that 13.8% of investigators and 31.3% of IRB administrators did not submit midyearreports to IRB and for bioethical issues of NR&D projects, 17.2% of investigators did not include information onproject status and safety issues in the annual reports. Conclusion: In conclusion, for successful and ethical completionof R&D projects, revision of both IRB review process and NR&D project protocol formats as well as implementationof appropriate bioethical oversights are necessary.
참고문헌 (25)
- Steinbrook R., "Protecting research subjects : the crisis at Johns Hopkins", N Engl J Med, 346(9), pp.716~720 (2002)
- National Bioethics Committee, "The National Bioethics Committee’s report on bioethical problems in Hwang Woo-Suk research. 1st ed", pp.1~9 (2006), Bioethics Policy Resarch Center
- 손영수, "의학에서의 생명윤리", 생명윤리, 11(2), pp.77~84 (2010), 한국생명윤리학회
- "Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development"[URL]
- Hong SY., "A Critical Review on the 'Bioethics & Biosafety Law'", J Korean Bioethics Assoc, 5(1), pp.13~23 (2004)
- "Bioethics and Safety Act (Act No. 11690). Enforcement Date May 23", ~ (2013)
- "Enforcement Rule of Bioethics and Safety Act (No. 180). Enforcement Date January 2", ~ (2013)
- McWilliams R., "Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study", JAMA, 290(3), pp.360~366 (2003)
- Larson E., "A survey of IRB process in 68 US hospitals", J Nurs Scholarsh, 36(3), pp.260~264 (2004)
- Mansbach J., "Variation in institutional review board responses to a standard, observational, pediatric research protocol", Acad Emerg Med, 14(4), pp.377~380 (2007)
- 김옥주, "국내 기관생명윤리심의위원회(IRB)의 현황과 문제점", 한국의료윤리학회지, 9(2), pp.203~222 (2006), 한국의료윤리학회
- Choe BI., "Progress and assessment analysis of the human research protection program in Korea: IRB assessment by the Korean Association of institutional review boards (KAIRB)", 박사, pp.2011
- Ock-JooKim, "Current Status of the Institutional Review Boards in Korea : Constitution, Operation, and Policy for Protection of HumanResearch Participants", Journal of Korean Medical Science, 18(1), pp.3~10 (2003), 대한의학회
- 이미성, "임상시험 피험자에게 발생하는 이상반응 관리 절차의 문제점과 개선방안", 생명윤리정책연구, 4(2), pp.77~97 (2010), 생명의료법연구소
- 백수진, "임상시험심사위원회와 기관생명윤리심의위원회의 개선방향에 관한 고찰", 생명윤리정책연구, 1(2), pp.141~156 (2007), 생명의료법연구소
- 김병수, "기관생명윤리심의위원회 운영현황 실태분석및 개선안 모색", 생명윤리정책연구, 2(3), pp.291~302 (2008), 생명의료법연구소
- Lee JS, "The experience of IRB accreditation in Korea", In: The Korean Association of Institutional Review Boards 11th Annual Meeting (2013)
- "NIH guide: Revised policy for IRB review of human subject protocols in grant applications"[URL]
- "Role of Accreditation"[URL]
- 김수정, "미국 임상시험심사위원회 인증체계에 대한 연구: 인간피험자보호프로그램을 위한 인증협회를 중심으로", 생명윤리정책연구, 1(2), pp.157~181 (2007), 생명의료법연구소
- "Enforcement Decree of Bioethics and Safety Act (President Decree No. 24454). Enforcement Date May 23", ~ (2013)
- Sugarman J., "The role of institutional support in protecting human research subjects", Acad Med, 75(7), pp.687~692 (2000)
- "NIH guide: Required education in the protection of human research participants"[URL]
- "NIH policy: FAQs Human Subjects Research - Requirement for Education"[URL]
- Emanuel EJ., "Oversight of human participants research : identifying problems to evaluate reform proposals", Ann Intern Med, 141(4), pp.282~291 (2004)