Skip to main content
Log in

Assessing Research Ethics Committees in Myanmar: Results of a Self-Assessment Tool

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Asian Bioethics Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Human subjects research has increased in Myanmar since 2010 and, accordingly, the establishment of research ethics committees (RECs) has increased review of these research studies. However, characteristics that reflect the operations of RECs in Myanmar have not been assessed. To assess the structures and processes of RECs at medical institutions in Myanmar, we used a self-assessment tool for RECs operating in low- and middle-income countries. This tool consists of the following ten domains: organizational aspects, membership and ethics training, submission arrangements and materials, meeting minutes, policies referring to review procedures, review of specific protocol and informed consent items, communication a decision, continuing review, REC resources and institutional commitment. We distributed this self-administered questionnaire to RECs from 15 medical institutions in Myanmar and one representative from each REC completed this questionnaire and returned it anonymously. We used descriptive, bivariate and multivariate statistics to analyse the data. Out of a maximum 200 points, the total mean score for Myanmar medical institutions was 112.6 ± 12.77, which is lower compared with the aggregate mean score of 137.4 ± 35.8 obtained from RECs in other countries. Domains in which the average percentage score was less than 60% included organizational commitment, membership and ethics training, continuing review and REC resources. Many RECs have a diverse membership and appropriate gender balance but lacked essential policies. The results show that for Myanmar RECs, there is significant room for improvement in their “structures and processes” as well as the extent of institutional commitment. The self-assessment tool proved to be a valuable method to assess the quality of RECs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets used and analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Adams, Pornpimon, Jaranit Kaewkungwal, Chanthima Limphattharacharoen, Sukanya Prakobtham, Krisana Pengsaa, and Srisin Khusmith. 2014. 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 9 (11): e113356. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0113356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bursac, Z., C.H. Gauss, D.K. Williams, and D.W. Hosmer. 2008. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code for Biology and Medicine 3: 17. https://doi.org/10.1186/1751-0473-3-17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chenneville, T., L. Menezes, J. Kosambiya, and R. Baxi. 2016. A case-study of the resources and functioning of two research ethics committees in Western India. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 11 (5): 387–396. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264616636235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, Carl H., and Marie-Charlotte Bouesseau. 2008. How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review. BMC Medical Ethics 9: 6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-9-6.

  • CIOMS. 2016. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans, 4th edition. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). Accessed 6 March 2020. https://cioms.ch/shop/product/international-ethical-guidelines-for-health-related-research-involving-humans/.

  • Indian Council of Medical Research. 2006. Ethical guidelines for biomedical research on human participants. Accessed 11 November 2013. http://icmr.nic.in/ethical_guidelines.pdf.

  • Kirigia, J.M., C. Wambebe, and A. Baba-Moussa. 2005. Status of national research bioethics committees in the WHO African region. BMC Medical Ethics 6: E10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-6-10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milford, C., D. Wassenaar, and C. Slack. 2006. Resources and needs of research ethics committees in Africa: preparations for HIV vaccine trials. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 28: 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Normile, D. 2008. The promise and pitfalls of clinical trials overseas. Science 322: 214–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nyika A, Kilama W, Tangwa GB, and et.al. 2009. Capacity building of ethics review committees across Africa based on the results of a comprehensive needs assessment survey. Developing World Bioethics 9:149–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-8847.2008.00243.x.

  • Oo, Zaw Zaw, Yin Thet Nu Oo, Mo Mo Than, Khine Zaw Oo, Min Wun, Kyaw Soe Htun, and Henry J. Silverma. 2018. Current status of research ethics capacity in Myanmar. Asian Bioethics Review 10 (2): 123–132. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0054-z.

  • Silaigwana, Blessing, and Douglas Wassenaar. 2015. Biomedical research ethics committees in sub-Saharan Africa: a collective review of their structure, functioning, and outcomes. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 10 (2): 169–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264615575511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverman, Henry J., Hany Sleem, Keymanthri Moodley, N. Kumar, S. Naidoo, T. Subramanian, R. Jaafar, and M. Moni. 2015. Results of a self-assessment tool to assess the operational characteristics of research ethics committees in low- and middle-income countries. Journal of Medical Ethics 41 (4): 332–337. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2013-101587.

  • Sleem, Hany, Samer S. El-Kamary, and Henry J. Silverman. 2010a. Identifying structures, processes, resources and needs of research ethics committees in Egypt. BMC Medical Ethics 11: 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-11-12.

  • Sleem, Hany, Rehab Abdelhai Ahmed Abdelhai, Imad Al-Abdallat, Mohammed Al-Naif, Hala Mansour Gabr, Et-taher Kehil, Bakr Bin Sadiq, Reham Yousri, Dyaeldin Elsayed, Suad Sulaiman, and Henry J. Silverman. 2010b. Development of an accessible self-assessment tool for research ethics committees in developing countries. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics 5(3): 85–96. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2010.5.3.85.

  • Thatte, U.M., and P.A. Marathe. 2017. Ethics committees in India: past, present and future. Perspectives in Clinical Research 8 (1): 22–30. https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-3485.198549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Zijl, S., B. Johnson, S. Benatar, P. Cleaton-Jones, P. Netshidzivhani, M. Ratsaka-Mothokoa, C. Shilumani, H. Rees, and A. Dhai. 2004. Ethics in health research: principles, structures and processes. Accessed 5 May 2013. http://www.nhrec.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/ethics.pdf.

  • World Health Organization. 2002. Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER): terms of reference and strategic plan. Geneva.

  • World Health Organization. 2011. Standards and operational guidance for ethics review of health-related research with human participants. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44783/9789241502948_eng.pdf;sequence=1.

  • Yaghoobi, M. 2011. Theoretical shortcomings of institutional review boards and possible solutions. Archives of Iranian Medicine 14 (3): 202–203. https://doi.org/011143/AIM.0012.

  • Yakubu, Aminu A., Adnan A. Hyder, Joseph Ali, and Nancy Kass. 2017. Research ethics committees in Nigeria: a survey of operations, functions, and needs. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 39 (3).

Download references

Funding

Department of Medical Research, Myanmar (External Grant No. 32/2017) and the Fogarty International Center at the National Institutes of Health. Award Number R25TW010516.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

ZZO contributed to the design of the study, collected the data, analysed and interpreted the data, and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript.

MW contributed to the design of the study, interpreted the data and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.

YTNO contributed to the design of the study, interpreted the data and helped with the analysis of the transcripts and revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.

KSM contributed to the design of the study, analysed and interpreted the data and helped revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content.

HJS contributed to the design of the study, analysed and interpreted the data and was a major contributor in writing the manuscript.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Henry J. Silverman.

Ethics declarations

We obtained ethical approval for this survey from the IRBs at the Myanmar DMR and at the University of Maryland Baltimore, USA.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Oo, Z.Z., Wun, M., Oo, Y.T.N. et al. Assessing Research Ethics Committees in Myanmar: Results of a Self-Assessment Tool. ABR 12, 37–49 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00113-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-020-00113-7

Keywords

Navigation