EXPERIENCE OF COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES IN COLOMBI

Main Article Content

Elena Rey Lozano
Gilberto Alfonso Gamboa Bernal
María de los Ángeles Mazzanti Di Ruggiero

Abstract

Research Ethics Committees have the responsibility to protect the participants involved in researches and to guarantee the ethical behavior of researchers. In some institutions, such committees also review scientific projects of non-pharmaceutical areas, Public Health and Health Economics. Within this framework, the article analyzes what it means to be part of a Research Ethics Committee in a hospital or university based on personal experience as a community representative. By means of the convenience (accidental) sampling technique, implemented in four Colombian cities that have GCP-certified committees by INVIMA –National Institute for the Control of Medications and Food–, and by means of content analysis, based on fixed and emergent categories; the experience, perception, participation, representation, and ethical aspects are described as well as the learning process and personal contributions. Findings prove that representatives interviewed have been benefited by learning clinic and epidemiological aspects without necessarily being “experts in the community”. However, they seem not to recognize clearly the population they represent, which might lead these communities to being affected by certain particular studies. The article suggests to work on the minimal common elements that a community representative should possess to appropriately protect participants.

Keywords:
Biomedical Research Ethics Committees, Biomedical Research, Community Participation, Community Representative

References

Alterio, María Gabriela, et al. “Estructura y organización de los comités de ética de la investigación en Colombia (2001-2002)”. Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética 8.1 (2008): 96-115.

Arango-Bayer, Gloria Lucía. “Los comités de ética de la investigación. Objetivos, funcionamiento y principios que buscan proteger”. Investigación en Enfermería: Imagen y Desarrollo. 10.1 (2008): 9-20.

Chung, Phillip, Colleen M. Grogan y Jennifer E. Mosley. “Residents’ perceptions of effective community representation in local health decision-making”. Social Science & Medicine (2012): 1652-1659.

Code of Federal Regulations. US Government publishing office. 2016. Enero de2016. <http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=54ac c14e675b6b4b860bea23f2076101&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/ Title21/21cfr56_main_02.tpl>.

Council for international organizations of medical sciences (CIOMS). «International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research involving human subjects.» Geneva, 2002.

Emanuel, Ezequiel J., et al. “What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research”. The Journal of Infectious Diseases 189 (2004): 930-937.

Good Clinical Practice International Conference on harmonization. 8 agosto 2016. <http://www.ich.org/products/guidelines/efficacy/ efficacy-single/article/good-clinical-practice.html>.

INVIMA. ABC Comités de ética. Bogotá, 2012.

Klitzman, R. “Institutional review board community members: Who are they, what do they do, and whom do they represent?”. Academic Medicine 87.7 (2012): 975-981.

Kuyare, MS, et al. “Perceptions and Experiences of Community Members Serving on Institutional Review Boards: A Questionnaire Based Study”. HEC Forum 27.1 (2015): 61-77.

Macías, Andrea. “El concepto de miembro de la comunidad en los comités de ética en investigación”. Revista de Bioética y Derecho (2011): 24-32.

Mazzanti, DiRuggiero, y María de los Ángeles. “Investigación transdisciplinaria en bioética moderadora de la importación de políticas bioéticas globales”. Revista Colombiana de Bioética (2010): 154-163.

Ministerio de Salud. Resolución 2378. Bogotá, 2008.

—. Resolución 8430 de 1993. Bogotá, 1993.

Miranda, Consuelo y Gloria Palma. “Comités de etica de investigación en humanos: el desafío de su fortalecimiento en Colombia”. Biomédica 26.1 (2006).

OMS. Guías operacionales para comités de ética que evalúan investigación biomédica. Ginebra, 2000.

OPS. Pautas y orientación operativa para la revisión ética de la investigación en salud con seres humanos. Washington, D.C., 2012.

Ramos Pozón, Sergio, y Marius Morlans Molina. “Legos en el comité de ética: una reflexión desde la ética dialógica”. Revista de Bioética y Derecho 21 (2011): 33.

Rey , Elena. “Evaluación de instituciones que investigan en humanos: justificación ética y estándares de calidad”. Vía Salud 46 (2008).

Rey , Elena. “El representante de la comunidad en los comités de ética en investigación biomédica de instituciones de salud de Bogotá, Colombia”. Revista Latinoamericana de Bioética (2014): 130-137.

UNESCO. Guía No 1 Creación de Comités de Bioética. Paris, 2005.

—. Guía No 3 Capacitación de los Comités de Bioética. Paris, 2007. Warren, Mark E. Governance-driven democratization. 2008.