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...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inBMC medical ethics Vol. 17; no. 1; p. 27
Main Authors Ouwe Missi Oukem-Boyer, Odile, Munung, Nchangwi Syntia, Tangwa, Godfrey B.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published England BioMed Central Ltd 13.05.2016
BioMed Central
Subjects
Online AccessGet 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