Small is beautiful: demystifying and simplifying standard operating procedures: a model from the ethics review and consultancy committee of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative
Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research eth...
Saved in:
Published in | BMC medical ethics Vol. 17; no. 1; p. 27 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
England
BioMed Central Ltd
13.05.2016
BioMed Central |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
Abstract | Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments.
In this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs.
Sixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols.
We are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing. |
---|---|
AbstractList | Background Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments. Methods In this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs. Results Sixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols. Conclusions We are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing. Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments.BACKGROUNDResearch ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments.In this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs.METHODSIn this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs.Sixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols.RESULTSSixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols.We are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing.CONCLUSIONSWe are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing. Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC) for review and approval. This has led to very rapid developments in the domain of research ethics, as RECs proliferate all over the globe in rhyme with the explosion in human subjects research. The work of RECs has increasingly become elaborate, complex, and in many cases urgent, necessitating supporting rules and procedures of operation. Guidelines for elaborating standard operating procedures (SOPs) for the functioning of RECs have also been proposed. The SOPs of well-placed and well-resourced RECs have tended to pay much attention to details, resulting, as a consequence, in generally long, elaborate, intricate and complex SOPs; a model that can hardly be replicated by other committees, equally under ethics review pressures, but working under much more constraining conditions in resource-destitute environments. In this paper, we looked at the content and length of SOPs from African RECs and compared them to the World Health Organization (WHO)'s guidelines as the gold standard. We also looked at the SOPs from the Ethics Review and Consultancy Committee (ERCC) of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative that we elaborated in a simplified way in 2013, and compared them to the WHO's guidelines and to the other SOPs. Sixteen SOPs from 14 African countries were collected from various sources. Their average length was of 30 pages. By comparison to the guidance of the WHO, only six of them were found acceptable with more than 70 % of the criteria from the gold standard that were fully described. Among those six, two of them were very long and detailed (65 and 102 pages), while the four remaining SOPs ranged from 16 to 24 pages. The ERCC SOPs are seven pages long but maintain all that is of essence for the rigorous, efficient and timely review of protocols. We are convinced that, because of their brevity, simplicity, clarity and user-friendliness, the ERCC SOPs recommend themselves as a model template to, at least, committees similarly situated and/or circumstanced as the ERCC of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative is. In fact, brevity, clarity, simplicity and user-friendliness are recognized values. Whatever is brief and clear is better than what is not and saves time. What is simple and user-friendly is better than what is not even though the two have the same aims because it saves both time and mental energy. And if this be true in general, it is even truer of the context and its peculiar constraints that we are addressing. |
ArticleNumber | 27 |
Audience | Academic |
Author | Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer, Odile Tangwa, Godfrey B. Munung, Nchangwi Syntia |
Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Odile surname: Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer fullname: Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer, Odile – sequence: 2 givenname: Nchangwi Syntia surname: Munung fullname: Munung, Nchangwi Syntia – sequence: 3 givenname: Godfrey B. surname: Tangwa fullname: Tangwa, Godfrey B. |
BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178053$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
BookMark | eNqNk11v0zAUhiM0xD7gB3CDLHEDFx12vmzvYtKo-KiYNMSAW8tNTlpPjl1sp9AfxX_kdC1TOyE0RVHenDzva-XY5zg7cN5Blj1n9JQxUb-JLJeMjiir8UYhHmVHrOT5qJaFPNjRh9lxjDeUMi6K_El2mHNUtCqOst_XvbaWmEimoIdkusGekRb6VUS9Mm5GtGtJNP3Cbt9jwooOLfELCDqtS4vgG2iHAPGMaNL7Fizpgu9JmgOBNDdNJAGWBn7epjXexcFiTLNC3fcmJQDiu1t8rHsI3jvy1vitdeJMMrjSEp5mjzttIzzbPk-yb-_ffR1_HF1efZiMLy5HTSXrNGqnNeWi01zrohSMSw204DnUUotpkdOuyxnoCiQUBWAfdM3aqdC8rMpGC0mLk-x8k7sYpj20DbgUtFWLYHodVspro_a_ODNXM79UpajrkuUY8GobEPyPAWJSvYkNWKsd-CEqbL8sZVWJGtGX99AbPwSHv4eU5EXO811qpi0o4zqP6zbrUHVRVoXgtKQSqdN_UHjhjhpsO3QG63uG13sGZBL8SjM9xKg-fZ48mJ1cf3k4e_V9n32x2-y7Lv89pAiwDdAEH2OA7g5hVK0HQW0GQeEgqPUgKIEefs_TmIRnyK_3y9j_OP8AfZUM4A |
CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_018_0339_5 crossref_primary_10_1080_20477724_2018_1424514 |
Cites_doi | 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 10.1186/1472-6939-8-1 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040003 10.1111/j.1748-720X.1996.tb01832.x 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00325.x 10.1136/jme.2008.025189 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.07.034 10.1590/S0102-311X2012001000018 |
ContentType | Journal Article |
Copyright | COPYRIGHT 2016 BioMed Central Ltd. Copyright BioMed Central 2016 Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer et al. 2016 |
Copyright_xml | – notice: COPYRIGHT 2016 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: Copyright BioMed Central 2016 – notice: Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer et al. 2016 |
DBID | AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM IOV ISR KPI 3V. 7X7 7XB 88C 88E 8FI 8FJ 8FK AABKS ABSDQ ABUWG AFKRA AZQEC BENPR CCPQU DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH K9. M0S M0T M1P PGAAH PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
DOI | 10.1186/s12910-016-0110-8 |
DatabaseName | CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed Gale In Context Opposing Viewpoints Gale In Context: Science Gale In Context: Global Issues ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Philosophy Collection Philosophy Database ProQuest Central (Alumni) ProQuest Central UK/Ireland ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central ProQuest One Community College ProQuest Central Korea Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition) Healthcare Administration Database Medical Database ProQuest One Religion & Philosophy ProQuest Central Premium ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Publicly Available Content ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) |
DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China ProQuest One Religion & Philosophy Philosophy Collection ProQuest Central Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition ProQuest Health Management ProQuest Hospital Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Health Management (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) Philosophy Database MEDLINE - Academic |
DatabaseTitleList | Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: EIF name: MEDLINE url: https://proxy.k.utb.cz/login?url=https://www.webofscience.com/wos/medline/basic-search sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: BENPR name: ProQuest Central url: https://www.proquest.com/central sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
Discipline | Medicine |
EISSN | 1472-6939 |
ExternalDocumentID | PMC4866412 4090869161 A453870409 27178053 10_1186_s12910_016_0110_8 |
Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
GeographicLocations | Africa |
GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Africa |
GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: ; grantid: CB. 2011.41302.021 |
GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 4.4 53G 5GY 5VS 6J9 6PF 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AABKS AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL AAYXX ABIVO ABSDQ ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACHQT ACIHN ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHSBF AHYZX ALIPV ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS AQUVI BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CITATION CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EBD EBLON EBS EJD EMB EMOBN F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 H13 HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR IOV IPY ISR ITC KPI KQ8 M0T M1P M48 M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SHS SOJ SV3 TR2 UKHRP WOQ WOW XSB CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM PMFND 3V. 7XB 8FK AZQEC DWQXO K9. PGAAH PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c596t-db6078fa7aa348179ae0372e69a8b320ff21ea5e9e33e805a61db8a7454ca8903 |
IEDL.DBID | M48 |
ISSN | 1472-6939 |
IngestDate | Thu Aug 21 13:58:52 EDT 2025 Mon Jul 21 09:45:49 EDT 2025 Fri Jul 25 03:05:24 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 17 22:05:41 EDT 2025 Tue Jun 10 20:59:22 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 06:09:50 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 06:08:40 EDT 2025 Fri Jun 27 05:29:07 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 03 07:04:04 EDT 2025 Thu Apr 24 23:07:15 EDT 2025 Tue Jul 01 01:08:54 EDT 2025 |
IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
IsOpenAccess | true |
IsPeerReviewed | true |
IsScholarly | true |
Issue | 1 |
Keywords | WHO’s guidelines Gold standard Research ethics committee Africa Standard operating procedures |
Language | English |
License | Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
LinkModel | DirectLink |
MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c596t-db6078fa7aa348179ae0372e69a8b320ff21ea5e9e33e805a61db8a7454ca8903 |
Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
OpenAccessLink | https://www.proquest.com/docview/1797327286?pq-origsite=%requestingapplication% |
PMID | 27178053 |
PQID | 1797327286 |
PQPubID | 42596 |
ParticipantIDs | pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_4866412 proquest_miscellaneous_1789495586 proquest_journals_1797327286 gale_infotracmisc_A453870409 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A453870409 gale_incontextgauss_KPI_A453870409 gale_incontextgauss_ISR_A453870409 gale_incontextgauss_IOV_A453870409 pubmed_primary_27178053 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12910_016_0110_8 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12910_016_0110_8 |
ProviderPackageCode | CITATION AAYXX |
PublicationCentury | 2000 |
PublicationDate | 2016-05-13 |
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2016-05-13 |
PublicationDate_xml | – month: 05 year: 2016 text: 2016-05-13 day: 13 |
PublicationDecade | 2010 |
PublicationPlace | England |
PublicationPlace_xml | – name: England – name: London |
PublicationTitle | BMC medical ethics |
PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Med Ethics |
PublicationYear | 2016 |
Publisher | BioMed Central Ltd BioMed Central |
Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BioMed Central |
References | A Nyika (110_CR6) 2009; 35 World Medical Association (110_CR1) 2013; 310 110_CR9 110_CR8 EC Villanueva (110_CR2) 2012; 28 NE Kass (110_CR5) 2007; 4 110_CR3 O Ouwe-Missi-Oukem-Boyer (110_CR7) 2013; 6 110_CR10 A Nyika (110_CR11) 2009; 112 C IJsselmuiden (110_CR4) 2012; 12 K Moodley (110_CR13) 2007; 8 S Loue (110_CR12) 1996; 24 24141714 - JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4 17254335 - BMC Med Ethics. 2007;8:1 8925012 - J Law Med Ethics. 1996 Spring;24(1):47-53 19665983 - Acta Trop. 2009 Nov;112 Suppl 1:S21-31 22512919 - Dev World Bioeth. 2012 Aug;12(2):74-86 17253898 - PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e3 19251972 - J Med Ethics. 2009 Mar;35(3):189-93 23090179 - Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Oct;28(10):2003-8 |
References_xml | – ident: 110_CR3 – volume: 310 start-page: 2191 issue: 20 year: 2013 ident: 110_CR1 publication-title: JAMA doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053 – volume: 8 start-page: 1 issue: 1 year: 2007 ident: 110_CR13 publication-title: BMC Med Ethics doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-8-1 – volume: 4 start-page: e3 issue: 1 year: 2007 ident: 110_CR5 publication-title: PLoS Med doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040003 – volume: 6 start-page: 4 issue: 1 year: 2013 ident: 110_CR7 publication-title: Bioethica Forum – ident: 110_CR10 – volume: 24 start-page: 47 issue: 1 year: 1996 ident: 110_CR12 publication-title: J Law Med Ethics doi: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.1996.tb01832.x – ident: 110_CR9 – ident: 110_CR8 – volume: 12 start-page: 74 issue: 2 year: 2012 ident: 110_CR4 publication-title: Dev World Bioeth doi: 10.1111/j.1471-8847.2012.00325.x – volume: 35 start-page: 189 issue: 3 year: 2009 ident: 110_CR6 publication-title: J Med Ethics doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.025189 – volume: 112 start-page: S21 issue: Suppl 1 year: 2009 ident: 110_CR11 publication-title: Acta Trop doi: 10.1016/j.actatropica.2009.07.034 – volume: 28 start-page: 2003 issue: 10 year: 2012 ident: 110_CR2 publication-title: Cadernos de saude publica doi: 10.1590/S0102-311X2012001000018 – reference: 19665983 - Acta Trop. 2009 Nov;112 Suppl 1:S21-31 – reference: 22512919 - Dev World Bioeth. 2012 Aug;12(2):74-86 – reference: 17253898 - PLoS Med. 2007 Jan;4(1):e3 – reference: 17254335 - BMC Med Ethics. 2007;8:1 – reference: 24141714 - JAMA. 2013 Nov 27;310(20):2191-4 – reference: 23090179 - Cad Saude Publica. 2012 Oct;28(10):2003-8 – reference: 19251972 - J Med Ethics. 2009 Mar;35(3):189-93 – reference: 8925012 - J Law Med Ethics. 1996 Spring;24(1):47-53 |
SSID | ssj0017832 |
Score | 2.0556486 |
SecondaryResourceType | review_article |
Snippet | Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research protocols be... Background Research ethics review is a critical aspect of the research governance framework for human subjects research. This usually requires that research... |
SourceID | pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref |
SourceType | Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source |
StartPage | 27 |
SubjectTerms | Africa Benchmarking Bioethics Cameroon Ethical Review - standards Ethics Committees, Research Ethics, Research Humans Laws, regulations and rules Research ethics World Health Organization |
SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: Health & Medical Collection dbid: 7X7 link: http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwhV1ba9RAFB60gvgi3t1aZRRBEEKTuU9fpBZLV6mKtbJvYZJMdGE32Zrsz_I_es5kdm0E61uS-Sbs5lzmnJlzIeSlkt5UjJeJTJlLRKF54qTWiaicKG0mSxtOTE8_qpNz8X4mZ3HDrYthlRudGBR11Za4R74PjKM508yoN6uLBLtG4elqbKFxndzA0mUY0qVnW4cr08Cu8SQzM2q_g7UthGGhDw0XZrQW_a2RLy1J43DJS-vP8R1yOxqO9HCg9F1yzTf3yM3TeDR-n_w6W7rFgs47WngH3FSvFwcUk0VAhkMuE3VNRbs5RpAP95tdBNqusLIyPgrLWbUGF_yAOhq65FBMQKFgJlIfQuPpkOwS3lZi_uaiRwUN18vlvO-9p20d4Edu6cEsb-jbeRunTjFSKVQaf0DOj999PTpJYi-GpJRW9UlVKDAmaqedw9RdbZ1PuWZeWWcKztK6Zpl30lvPuTepdCqrCuO0kKJ0xqb8Idlp2sY_JtRKJ4tKapd5LizPACRsZaSEZ7xm1YSkG6rkZSxUjv0yFnlwWIzKB0LmGJyGhMzNhLzeTlkNVTquAr9AUudY_aLB8Jrvbt11-fTTt_xQgP7XoNfsv0BnX_4P-vB5OgK9iqC6hb9Rupj3AB8DS2-NkHsjJAh6OR7e8GYeFU2X_xGLCXm-HcaZGDzX-HaNGGPBD5aIeTSw8vYrMXDngVx8QvSIybcALD8-HmnmP0IZcmGUEhnbvfpnPSG3WJA4mWR8j-z0P9f-KdhxffEsCOtvqY1I7A priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
Title | Small is beautiful: demystifying and simplifying standard operating procedures: a model from the ethics review and consultancy committee of the Cameroon Bioethics Initiative |
URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27178053 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1797327286 https://www.proquest.com/docview/1789495586 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC4866412 |
Volume | 17 |
hasFullText | 1 |
inHoldings | 1 |
isFullTextHit | |
isPrint | |
link | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwjV3ri9NAEF_uAeIX8X3Vs6wiCEI02fceiPSOO66VnsfVSr-FTbLRQprqJQX9o_wfnd2k9SLn41PT7G8D2ZnZmcnOA6HngluVEZoGPCQmYImkgeFSBiwzLNURT7U_MR2fidMpG834bAut21u1C1hd69q5flLTy-LVt6_f34LAv_ECr8TrCnSWD69yvjFcqG20C4pJOjkds1-HClL5fmURkyQQmur2kPPaR3TU1O-b9RVt1Y2kvKKaTm6jW61NiQcNE9xBW7a8i26M21Pze-jHZGGKAs8rnFgDjJavigPs8khAvH2aEzZlhqu5Cy5v_q8_MGBYDMcicMtrumwF3vkBNtg30MEuNwWDBYmtj5rHTR6Mf1rqUjuL2u3dcL1YzOvaWrzMPfzILCxY7CU-nC_bqUMXxOSLkN9H05PjD0enQdumIUi5FnWQJQLsjNxIY1xWr9TGhlQSK7RRCSVhnpPIGm61pdSqkBsRZYkyknGWGqVD-gDtlMvS7iGsueFJxqWJLGWaRgBiOlOcwz2ak6yHwjVV4rStYe5aaRSx92WUiBtCxi5uzREyVj30cjPlS1PA42_gZ47UsSuMUbrIm09mVVXx8P3HeMBANUjY8vSfQJOLf4PenQ87oBctKF_Ca6SmTYmAxXBVuTrI_Q4S9oC0O7zmzXgtQjFQQlIiiRI99HQz7Ga6uLrSLlcOozS4yNxhHjasvFklAp4-kIv2kOww-QbgKpN3R8r5Z1-hnCkhWEQe_ff7PUY3iRc-HkR0H-3Ulyv7BKy9OumjbTmTfbQ7GIwmI_g9PD47v-j7byd9L98_Aa5lVsc |
linkProvider | Scholars Portal |
linkToHtml | http://utb.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwtV1bb9MwFLZGJwEviDuFAQaBkJCiJb7E9iSEtrGppWuZdkF7C07iQKU2KSQV4kfBb8THScqCxHjaWxJ_jpKc43N8cm4IvQi5kSmhicd9oj0WC-ppLoTHUs0SFfBEOY_peBIOTtn7M362hn61uTAQVtnKRCeo0yKBf-SblnEEJYLI8O3iqwddo8C72rbQqNliZH58tyZb-Wb4ztL3JSH7eye7A6_pKuAlXIWVl8ahVYuZFlpDEqpQ2vhUEBMqLWNK_CwjgdHcKEOpkT7XYZDGUgvGWaKl8qm97xW0zqg1ZXpofWdvcni08lsIu0Aa32kgw83SalMX-AVWuz2QHe33tw44pwS7AZrnNN7-TXSj2ari7Zq3bqE1k99GV8eNM_4O-nk817MZnpY4Ntryb7acbWFIT7FSw2VPYZ2nuJxCzHp93v63wMUCajnDJadA06U1-rewxq4vD4aUF2w3pti4YHxcp9e4uyWQMTqrQCXY4_l8WlXG4CJz8F09N9YQyPHOtGimDiE2ytU2v4tOL4VO91AvL3LzAGHFNY9TLnRgKFM0sCCmUsm5vUYzkvaR31IlSprS6NChYxY5E0mGUU3ICMLhgJCR7KPXqymLui7IReDnQOoI6m3kENDzWS_LMhp--BhtM6txhJWk6l-g46P_g0aHww7oVQPKCvsaiW4yLezHgGJfHeRGB2lFS9IdbnkzakRbGf1ZiH30bDUMMyFcLzfFEjBSWcubA-Z-zcqrr0REAH00aB-JDpOvAFDwvDuST7-4wudMhiELyMOLH-spujY4GR9EB8PJ6BG6Ttzq415AN1Cv-rY0j-0usoqfNEsXo0-XLS1-A9aAhwM |
openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Small+is+beautiful%3A+demystifying+and+simplifying+standard+operating+procedures%3A+a+model+from+the+ethics+review+and+consultancy+committee+of+the+Cameroon+Bioethics+Initiative&rft.jtitle=BMC+medical+ethics&rft.au=Ouwe+Missi+Oukem-Boyer%2C+Odile&rft.au=Munung%2C+Nchangwi+Syntia&rft.au=Tangwa%2C+Godfrey+B&rft.date=2016-05-13&rft.pub=BioMed+Central+Ltd&rft.issn=1472-6939&rft.eissn=1472-6939&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=27&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12910-016-0110-8&rft.externalDocID=A453870409 |
thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon |
thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon |
thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1472-6939&client=summon |