Perspectives of non-specialists on the potential to serve as ethics committee members

OBJECTIVE: In Japan, under the new Clinical Trials Act pertaining to investigator-initiated clinical trials that came into effect on 1 April 2018, review boards should review proposed clinical trials while considering written opinions from specialists. Additionally, involvement of non-specialists is mandatory, and attention is being placed on their effective contributions. This study was performed to determine representative key issues with which to promote these contributions. METHODS: This qualitative study was conducted in 2018 using a focus group interview of six non-specialists regarding perspectives on clinical research itself and research ethics committees. RESULTS: For perspectives on clinical research itself, 33 codes were established and sorted into 2 categories and 6 subcategories relating to ambivalence toward clinical research. For perspectives on research ethics committees, 54 codes were established and sorted into 3 categories and 10 subcategories relating to the theme “knowledge and an environment that promotes non-specialist members’ participation.” One notable result was the willingness of participants to obtain details about a study should they be selected. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that detailed explanation of a particular study would encourage non-specialist members to participate in a clinical research review committee. Education aimed at non-specialist participation should therefore be considered in future studies.