Cargando…

Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya

Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hinga, Alex, Jeena, Lisha, Awuor, Esther, Kahindi, Jane, Munene, Marianne, Kinyanjui, Samson, Molyneux, Sassy, Marsh, Vicki, Kamuya, Dorcas
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9257264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35855072
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17533.2
_version_ 1784741307078410240
author Hinga, Alex
Jeena, Lisha
Awuor, Esther
Kahindi, Jane
Munene, Marianne
Kinyanjui, Samson
Molyneux, Sassy
Marsh, Vicki
Kamuya, Dorcas
author_facet Hinga, Alex
Jeena, Lisha
Awuor, Esther
Kahindi, Jane
Munene, Marianne
Kinyanjui, Samson
Molyneux, Sassy
Marsh, Vicki
Kamuya, Dorcas
author_sort Hinga, Alex
collection PubMed
description Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees. Methods: A document review and in-depth interviews with researchers, regulators and research reviewers were conducted. Documents reviewed included research logs of all protocols submitted between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, feedback letters from review committees for 10 new COVID-19 protocols (n=42), and minutes from 35 COVID-19 research review meetings. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents purposively selected because of their experience of developing or reviewing COVID-19 protocols at the institution level (n=9 researchers, engagement officers and regulators) or their experience in reviewing proposals at a national-level (n=6 committee members). Data were managed and analyzed using MS Excel and NVivo12. Results: Between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, 30 COVID-19-related submissions by KWTRP researchers were approved. Changes to the review system included strengthening the online system for protocol submission and review, recruiting more reviewers, and trialing a joint review process where one protocol was submitted to multiple review committees simultaneously . The turnaround time from submission to national approval/rejection over this period was faster than pre-pandemic, but slower than the national committee’s target. COVID-19-specific ethics questions centred on: virtual informed consent and data collection; COVID-19 prevention, screening and testing procedures; and the challenges of study design and community engagement during the pandemic. Conclusions: The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic and added bureaucratic requirements created a more complex review process and delayed final approval of research protocols. The feasibility of conducting joint review of research during public health emergencies in Kenya needs further investigation. Consideration of the unique COVID-19 ethics issues raised in this paper might aid expedience in current and future reviews.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9257264
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92572642022-07-18 Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya Hinga, Alex Jeena, Lisha Awuor, Esther Kahindi, Jane Munene, Marianne Kinyanjui, Samson Molyneux, Sassy Marsh, Vicki Kamuya, Dorcas Wellcome Open Res Research Article Background: The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic and novelty of SARS-CoV-2 presented unprecedented challenges in the review of COVID-19 protocols. We investigated how research at the KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) was reviewed, including by institutional and national level committees. Methods: A document review and in-depth interviews with researchers, regulators and research reviewers were conducted. Documents reviewed included research logs of all protocols submitted between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, feedback letters from review committees for 10 new COVID-19 protocols (n=42), and minutes from 35 COVID-19 research review meetings. Fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted with respondents purposively selected because of their experience of developing or reviewing COVID-19 protocols at the institution level (n=9 researchers, engagement officers and regulators) or their experience in reviewing proposals at a national-level (n=6 committee members). Data were managed and analyzed using MS Excel and NVivo12. Results: Between April-1-2020 and March-31-2021, 30 COVID-19-related submissions by KWTRP researchers were approved. Changes to the review system included strengthening the online system for protocol submission and review, recruiting more reviewers, and trialing a joint review process where one protocol was submitted to multiple review committees simultaneously . The turnaround time from submission to national approval/rejection over this period was faster than pre-pandemic, but slower than the national committee’s target. COVID-19-specific ethics questions centred on: virtual informed consent and data collection; COVID-19 prevention, screening and testing procedures; and the challenges of study design and community engagement during the pandemic. Conclusions: The unprecedented challenges of the pandemic and added bureaucratic requirements created a more complex review process and delayed final approval of research protocols. The feasibility of conducting joint review of research during public health emergencies in Kenya needs further investigation. Consideration of the unique COVID-19 ethics issues raised in this paper might aid expedience in current and future reviews. F1000 Research Limited 2022-06-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9257264/ /pubmed/35855072 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17533.2 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Hinga A et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Hinga, Alex
Jeena, Lisha
Awuor, Esther
Kahindi, Jane
Munene, Marianne
Kinyanjui, Samson
Molyneux, Sassy
Marsh, Vicki
Kamuya, Dorcas
Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title_full Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title_fullStr Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title_full_unstemmed Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title_short Pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of COVID-19 protocols at KEMRI Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Kenya
title_sort pandemic preparedness and responsiveness of research review committees: lessons from review of covid-19 protocols at kemri wellcome trust research programme in kenya
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9257264/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35855072
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.17533.2
work_keys_str_mv AT hingaalex pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT jeenalisha pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT awuoresther pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT kahindijane pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT munenemarianne pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT kinyanjuisamson pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT molyneuxsassy pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT marshvicki pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya
AT kamuyadorcas pandemicpreparednessandresponsivenessofresearchreviewcommitteeslessonsfromreviewofcovid19protocolsatkemriwellcometrustresearchprogrammeinkenya