Exploring Researchers' Perspectives on Institutional Review Boards Functions in Saudi Arabia: A Survey Utilizing the...

Area of Science:

• Medical Ethics
• Clinical Research Oversight
• Human Subject Protection

Background:

• Ethics committees (IRBs) are crucial for overseeing human research, especially involving vulnerable populations.
• IRBs educate researchers on ethics, scientific integrity, and conflict of interest management.
• This study benchmarks local IRB functions from the perspective of researchers.

Purpose of the Study:

• To evaluate and benchmark the performance of local Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
• To assess researcher perspectives on IRB fairness, services, bias, competence, and participant rights protection.
• To identify gaps between ideal and actual IRB functions.

Main Methods:

• An online IRB-RAT survey was administered to investigators.
• The survey measured the perceived importance of IRB functions versus the researchers' rating of their IRB's performance in those functions.
• The difference between importance and performance ratings indicated the outcome.

Main Results:

• 179 participants (166 researchers, 13 IRB members) completed the survey.
• A significant performance gap was noted for IRBs requiring an experienced chair (1.53 difference).
• The smallest gap was observed in "Considering the protection of human participants" (0.51 difference).

Conclusions:

• Researchers perceive IRBs as respectful, prioritizing human protection, unbiased, and responsive to misconduct.
• Areas for improvement include ensuring experienced IRB leadership and enhancing researcher-IRB communication.
• Further collaboration is recommended to boost IRB performance and researcher engagement.