In this online cross-sectional survey, a total of 55 participants gave their implied consent to participate in the survey with a self-reported response rate of almost 86% (55/64). Respondents were included from the three sectors: research, medical and operations. The questionnaire had 44 questions that were divided into five groups (Supplementary additional file no.1-Questionnaire).
Demographics: Table 1 shows the results of the demographic characteristics such as age, gender, overall years of experience, institutional experience, number of projects involved, and ethics training attended among respondents from the three sectors. Overall, of the respondents, 54.5% were males and 45.5% were females. The research sector had the highest proportion of male respondents (61.5%) followed by the operations sector (58.3%), whereas the medical sector had a higher proportion of female (58.8%) respondents. The mean age of the respondents was 42.8years (±10.0SD). The mean total years of research experience was 16.8years (±9.1SD) and the years of experience at DDI was 6.4years (±3.8SD). No significant differences were observed among the respondents from the three sectors in terms of gender, age, or years of experience either total or at DDI (p > 0.05). On average, the respondents were involved in two projects, with an interquartile of (1- 4) projects. The maximum involvement in research projects was from the research sector with an average of four projects followed by the medical sector with two projects and then the operations sector with one project. A significant difference was noticed among the three sectors (p < 0.001) with respect to number of projects handled. The number of projects handled by the respondents from the research sector was significantly higher than those from the medical sector (p = 0.003) or from the operations sector (p = 0.001). 78.2% of respondents attended training on ethics, the most being from the medical sector (82.4%) followed by those from the research sector (80.8 %) and those from the operations sector (66.7 %). Statistically, no significant difference (p = 0.547) was found among the respondents from the three sectors who attended the training.
Table 1: Sector-wise demographics and general characteristics of the respondents
Sector & Characteristics
|
All Sectors
(N=55)
n (%)
|
Research
(n=26)
n (%)
|
Medical
(n = 17)
n (%)
|
Operations
(n=12)
n (%)
|
p-value
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
30 (54.5)
|
16 (61.5)
|
7 (41.2)
|
7 (58.3)
|
0.405
|
Female
|
25 (45.5)
|
10 (38.5)
|
10 (58.8)
|
5 (41.7)
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
< 40
|
24 (43.6)
|
11 (42.3)
|
6 (35.3)
|
7 (58.3)
|
0.460
|
≥ 40
|
31 (56.4)
|
15 (57.7)
|
11 (64.7)
|
5 (41.7)
|
|
Mean ± SD
Median (IQ)
|
42.8±10.0
41 (36-51)
|
43.4±10.8
42 (36-51)
|
43.2±9.3
41 (38-50)
|
40.8±9.8
38 (32-52)
|
0.757
|
Years of Experience
Mean ± SD
Median (IQ)
|
16.8±9.1
15 (10-22)
|
16.4±10.7
15 (8.5-23)
|
17.6±7.0
16 (12.5-23)
|
16.5±8.8
15.5 (8.5-24)
|
0.820
|
Experience at DDI (yrs)
Mean ± SD
Median (IQ)
|
6.4±3.8
7 (3-9)
|
6.7±3.6
8.5 (4-9)
|
7.0±2.9
7 (5.5-8.0)
|
5.0±5.2
3 (1-11)
|
0.513
|
Projects handled
Mean ± SD
Median (IQ)
|
2.69±3.24
2 (1-4)
|
3.9±2.2
4 (3-5)
|
2.1±1.6
2 (1-3)
|
0.8±1.5
0 (0-1)
|
<0.001*
|
% Ethics training attended
|
43 (78.2)
|
21 (80.8)
|
14 (82.4)
|
8 (66.7)
|
0.547
|
*Kruskal Wallis test., Mann-Whitney: Res Vs Med (p=0.003) & Res Vs Op (p<0.001)
Training on Research Ethics
Of the total 55 respondents, 43 (78.2%) had prior ethics training. Table 2 presents the general characteristics of respondents with respect to training. The mean age of those who have attended training was significantly lower than that of those who did not attend ethics training (41.2 vs 48.5 years; p = 0.024). Significant association was found between prior ethics training and number of projects handled (p = 0.043). Figure 1 presents the association between the ethics training and the number of projects handled.
Table 2: General characteristics of the respondents with respect to training
General
Characteristics
|
All Respondents
(N=55)
|
Training attended
(N=43)
|
Training not attended
(N=12)
|
p-value*
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
Male
|
30 (54.5)
|
23 (53.5)
|
7 (41.2)
|
0.766
|
Female
|
25 (45.5)
|
20 (46.5)
|
5 (58.8)
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
Mean ± SD
|
42.8±10.0
|
41.2±8.9
|
48.5±12.2
|
0.024
|
Years of Experience
Mean ± SD
|
16.8±9.1
|
16.0±8.0
|
19.6±12.2
|
0.229
|
Experience at DDI (yrs)
Mean ± SD
Median (IQ)
|
6.4±3.8
7 (3-9)
|
6.5±3.6
8 (4-9)
|
6.1±4.6
7 (1-10)
|
0.984
|
Projects handled
None
1-3
≥ 4
|
10 (18.2)
26 (47.3)
19 (34.5)
|
5 (11.6)
23 (53.5)
15 (34.9)
|
5 (41.7)
3 (25.0)
4 (33.3)
|
0.043
|
*General Characteristics Vs Training: Chi-square or t-test or Mann-Whitney U test
Knowledge and Attitude toward ethics committee and research ethical practices
Table 3 shows the knowledge and attitude toward ethics committee and research ethical practices among researchers across the three sectors. The knowledge and awareness of toward the ethics committee and its function among the respondents from the three sectors varied significantly (p = 0.002). A marginally significant difference (p = 0.050) was also observed in the attitude toward research ethical practices across the three sectors. As shown in Table 4, a positive trend on knowledge and attitude toward ethics committee and research ethical practices was noticed among the respondents who are involved in a higher number of projects (none, 1-3 and ≤ 4).
Table 3. Knowledge and attitude towards ethics committee and research ethical practices across sector respondents (% ‘positive’ responses)
Knowledge & Attitude
|
All
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=55)
|
Research
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=26)
|
Medical
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=17)
|
Operations Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=12)
|
p-value*
|
Knowledge and awareness on ethics committee and function (n=10) $
|
81.1. ± 17.3
(20.0-100)
|
86.9 ± 11.9
(53.0-100)
|
85.3 ± 9.4
(29.4-100)
|
62.5 ± 23.0
(33.3-100)
|
0.002
|
Knowledge on ethical principles (n=4) $
|
92.7 ± 15.7
(25.0-100)
|
91.3 ± 14.0
(88.5-92.3)
|
97.1 ± 12.1
(94.1-100)
|
89.6 ± 22.5
(83.3-100)
|
0.196
|
Attitude towards ethics committee (n=9) $
|
92.9 ± 9.9
(66.7-100)
|
93.2 ± 10.9
(84.6-100)
|
94.1 ± 6.9
(82.4-100)
|
90.8 ± 11.4
(75.0-100)
|
0.705
|
Attitude towards research ethical practices (n=13) $
|
90.2 ± 10.6
(46.2.-100)
|
92.3 ± 10.4
(73.1-100)
|
90.5 ± 5.1
(64.7-100)
|
85.3 ± 15.2
(50.0-100)
|
0.050
|
*Kruskal-Wallis test among work-areas, $ Number of questions on the aspect
Table 4 Knowledge and attitude towards ethics committee and research ethical practices according to number of projects handled (% ‘positive’ responses)
Knowledge & Attitude
|
None
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=10)
|
1-3
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=26)
|
≥ 4
Mean ± SD
(Range)
(n=19)
|
p-value*
|
Knowledge and awareness on ERC and research ethics (n=10) $
|
70.0 ± 28.3 (20.0-100)
|
81.5 ± 14.6
(40.0-100)
|
86.1 ± 17.3
(60.0-100)
|
0.285
|
Knowledge on ethics and principles (n=4) $
|
85.0 ± 24.2
(25.0-100)
|
94.2 ± 14.6
(50.0-100)
|
94.7 ± 10.5
(75.0-100)
|
0.289
|
Attitude towards ERC and its functions (n=9) $
|
92.2 ± 11.8
(66.7-100)
|
91.9 ± 10.2
(66.7-100)
|
94.7 ± 8.6
(77.8-100)
|
0.570
|
Attitude towards ethical and research practice (n=13) $
|
87.2 ± 15.0
(46.2-100)
|
89.1 ± 10.2
(61.5-100)
|
93.1 ± 8.1
(84.6-100)
|
0.277
|
*Kruskal-Wallis test among respondents involved in number of projects
$ Number of questions on the aspect
Knowledge and awareness of ethics committee and its functions: Table 5 indicates that the overall statistical outcome did not show any major significant association among the trained and untrained respondents. However, few questions on knowledge and awareness of the role of the ethics committee in research, ethical principles in research and views on the protocol reviewing approach by the committee were found to be statistically significant. (p = 0.050, p = 0.006, and p = 0.009 respectively).
Table 6 presents the knowledge and awareness of ethics committee and its functions among respondents across different sectors and respondent’s involvement in the number of projects. Overall, a significant difference (p = 0.002) was noticed across the sectors, and across the number of projects, (p = 0.050).
Knowledge of ethical principles: Perceptions of case scenarios allow a detailed study of understanding guidelines and application in a real-life situation. In case scenario number 1, which involves study protocol amendments: 92.7 % of respondents were aware of the process required when an amendment is made on an existing approved study protocol. In case scenario number 2, which involves children, 90.9% of respondents were aware of the importance of scenarios where the assent process is mandatory when children are involved in the study. In case scenario number 3, which involves vulnerable group, 92.7% of respondents were aware of the necessity of additional safeguards when a vulnerable population is enrolled in studies. In case scenario number 4, which involves ethical guidelines, only 41.8% of respondents were aware of the ethical guidelines and codes formulated for human protection. Scenario on guideline was somewhat confusing due to the abbreviations and acronyms used in the questionnaire and the options provided. In case scenario number 5, which involves functions of the ethics committee, 94.5% of respondents were aware of the ethics committee’s functions. The analysis showed that respondents who handled more than four projects were a strong interpreter for stating familiarity with knowledge on ethical principles (88.4 ± 10.1) and was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.027). No statistically significant difference was observed among respondents across different sectors, although a higher level of understanding (84.7%) was observed in the research and medical sectors than in the operations sector (75%) Table 7.
Attitude toward the ethics committee: Table 8 indicates an overall positive attitude toward the ethics committee among the researchers, irrespective of their training status with a mean percentage of (92.9 ± 9.9), however, slightly higher percentage was observed (93.5 ± 9.5) among the respondents who attended ethics training than among those who did not (90.7 ± 11.4). The overall percentage of attitude toward ethics committee among respondents varied between 85.5% and 98.2% with respect to a set of nine questions.
An overall similar optimistic attitude toward ethics committee was observed among respondents across sectors and among respondents who handled different number of projects. The mean over all percentage was found to be (92.9 ± 9.9) across sectors and among respondents handling different number of projects (Table 9). Respondents encouraged the presence of the ethics committee at the institute and considered their feedback helpful.
Attitude toward ethical research practice: The majority of respondents’ attitude toward ethical practices was found to be positive. All the respondents agreed that in a research study, participants should be given the entire details of the study including any risks and benefits, should maintain their confidentiality and privacy and should only be enrolled after obtaining ethical approval. No significant association was found between trained and untrained respondents with their attitude toward research ethical practices Table 10. Results indicate respondents from all sectors were aware of the importance of information given to potential research participants, including complete details of risks versus benefits, obtaining consent before the start of the study; and participant confidentiality (Table 11). Respondents’ understanding of concerns on research misconduct, manipulation of data, and overrule of the ethics committee’s decision was found to differ significantly (p = 0.024) across the sector , and among respondents involved in differing numbers of projects (p = 0.009). These data signify that respondents who handled a greater number of projects exercised and practiced ethical guidelines and attributed high importance to the ethics committee’s decision and considered it final.
Table 5: Knowledge and awareness on principles and functions of ERC among respondents attended training on ethics (% ‘correct’ responses)
Questions
|
All Respondents
(N=55)
|
Training Attended
(n=43)
|
Training Not attended
(n=12)
|
p-value
|
Do you know when Ethical Review Committee was formed?
|
41.8
|
46.5
|
25.0
|
0.182
|
Do you know ERC at DDI is approved by ministry of health?
|
72.7
|
76.7
|
58.3
|
0.205
|
Do you know members of Ethical Review Committee?
|
69.1
|
69.8
|
66.7
|
0.837
|
Do you know the role of Ethical Review Committee in the research?
|
94.5
|
97.7
|
83.3
|
0.050
|
Are you aware of the ethical principles in research?
|
96.4
|
100.0
|
83.3
|
0.006
|
Once the protocol or amendments are reviewed in a convened meeting of ERC or by chairman, do you feel ERC respond in a reasonable time frame most of the time?
|
88.2
|
87.5
|
90.9
|
0.756
|
Any change in the study protocol needs ERC approval
|
98.2
|
97.7
|
100.0
|
0.594
|
How often the ERC meets to review a protocol
|
78.2
|
79.1
|
75.0
|
0.763
|
Have you any time felt that the ERC is biased?
|
92.5
|
92.9
|
90.9
|
0.828
|
Do you think ERC at DDI reviews research protocol scientifically and ethically
|
92.5
|
97.6
|
75.0
|
0.009
|
Mean± SD
|
81.1 ±17.3
|
83.3 ±14.3
|
73.3±24.6
|
0.079
|
Table 6. Knowledge of ethics committee and functions among respondents across sectors and projects handled (% ‘correct’ responses)
Questions
|
Research
(None)
|
Medical
(1-3)
|
Operations
(≥ 4)
|
All
|
p-value
|
Do you know when Ethical Review Committee was formed?
|
53.8
(50.0)
|
29.4
(38.5)
|
33.3
(42.1)
|
41.8
|
0.226
(0.820)
|
Do you know ERC at DDI is approved by ministry of health?
|
84.6
(50.0)
|
70.6
(65.4)
|
50.0
(94.7)
|
72.7
|
0.081
(0.019)
|
Do you know members of Ethical Review Committee?
|
73.1
(50.0)
|
82.4
(69.2)
|
41.7
(78.9)
|
69.1
|
0.050
(0.276)
|
Do you know the role of Ethical Review Committee in the research?
|
100.0
(80.0)
|
100.0
(96.2)
|
75.0
(100.0)
|
94.5
|
0.003
(0.070)
|
Are you aware of the ethical principles in research?
|
100.0
(80.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
96.4
|
0.024
(0.009)
|
Once the protocol or amendments are reviewed in a convened meeting of ERC or by chairman, do you feel ERC respond in a reasonable time frame most of the time?
|
88.0
(87.5)
|
100.0
(84.0)
|
66.7
(94.4)
|
88.2
|
0.043
(0.576)
|
Any change in the study protocol needs ERC approval
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
100.0
(96.2)
|
91.7
(100.0)
|
98.2
|
0.161
(0.567)
|
How often the ERC meets to review a protocol
|
84.6
(80.0)
|
82.4
(76.9)
|
58.3
(78.9)
|
78.2
|
0.167
(0.975)
|
Have you any time felt that the ERC is biased?
|
100.0
(77.8)
|
88.2
(92.3)
|
80.0
(100.0)
|
92.5
|
0.092
(0.120)
|
Do you think ERC at DDI reviews research protocol scientifically and ethically
|
88.5
(87.5)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
100.0
(84.2)
|
92.5
|
0.356
(0.119)
|
Mean ± SD
|
86.9 ±11.9
70.0±28.3
|
85.3±9.4
81.5±14.6
|
62.5±23.0
86.1±17.3
|
81.1±17.3
|
0.002
(0.050)
|
Figures in 1st rows are for work sectors: Research, Medical & operation
Figures in 2nd rows ( ) are for Projects involved-in (None, 1-3, ≥4)
Table 7 Knowledge of ethics principles among respondents across sector and project handled (% ‘Correct’ responses)
Questions
|
Research
(None)
|
Medical
(1-3)
|
Operations
(≥ 4)
|
All
|
p-value
|
If you make a substantial amendment to an approved protocol e.g. an additional objective to the approved protocol and the inclusion criteria is changed, when do you think you can start this change (scenario 18)
|
92.3
(80.0)
|
100.0
(92.3)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
92.7
|
0.233
(0.142)
|
Nofel is a 11-year-old boy who is attending DDI pediatric clinic along with his parents. You find him eligible for your study based on eligibility criteria fulfillment. His parents signed the consent form and are keen on him participating in the study. But Nofel is crying and upset about the prospect of doing an MRI which is part of the study requirement. Should Nofel be recruited? (scenario 19)
|
88.5
(90.0)
|
94.1
(88.5)
|
91.7
(94.7)
|
90.9
|
0.815
(0.765)
|
A research is being conducted on 50 pregnant participants to understand gestational diabetes and their newborn babies will be followed until 6 months. Which of the following best describes this situation? (scenario 20)
|
92.3
(70.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
83.3
(94.7)
|
92.7
|
0.233
(0.007)
|
Which of the following is the guidelines followed for protection of human subjects? (scenario 21)
|
57.7
(20.0)
|
35.3
(34.6)
|
16.7
(63.2)
|
41.8
|
0.047
(0.048)
|
Which of the following is the function of ERC(scenario 22)
|
92.3
(100.0)
|
94.1
(96.2)
|
100.0
(89.5)
|
94.5
|
0.622
(0.437)
|
Mean ± SD
|
84.6 ±15.3
72.0±23.5
|
84.7±11.2
82.3±14.2
|
75.0±21.1
88.4±10.1
|
82.5±15.9
|
0.179
(0.027)
|
Figures in 1st rows are for work sectors: Research, Medical & operations
Figures in 2nd rows ( ) are for Projects involved-in (None, 1-3, ≥4)
Table 8. Attitude towards ERC among respondents among trained vs untrained (% ‘positive’ responses)
Questions
|
All Respondents
(N=55)
|
Training Attended
(n=43)
|
Training Not attended
(n=12)
|
p-value
|
Ethical Review Committee (ERC) is an obstacle to research
|
85.5
|
88.4
|
75.0
|
0.245
|
There is no requirement of ERC in the research institute
|
98.2
|
97.7
|
100.0
|
0.594
|
Research involving human participants directly or indirectly must be reviewed by the ERC
|
98.2
|
97.7
|
100.0
|
0.594
|
Clinical trial studies must be reviewed by ERC and approved before trial initiation
|
98.2
|
97.7
|
100.0
|
0.594
|
ERC review is not required as the research is scientifically approved
|
89.1
|
88.4
|
91.7
|
0.746
|
Members of the ERC have expertise to review research ethics
|
89.1
|
88.4
|
91.7
|
0.746
|
Members of the ERC must be trained on ethics periodically
|
96.4
|
97.7
|
91.7
|
0.326
|
Concerns or comments of ERC for a reviewed protocol is according to the ethical principles
|
92.7
|
93.0
|
91.7
|
0.873
|
Feedback received from ERC for a research protocol is useful
|
89.1
|
93.0
|
75.0
|
0.077
|
Mean± SD
|
92.9 ± 9.9
|
93.5 ±9.5
|
90.7±11.4
|
0.391
|
Table 9. Attitude towards ERC among respondents across sectors and projects handled (% ‘positive’ responses)
Questions
|
Research
(None)
|
Medical
(1-3)
|
Operations
(≥ 4)
|
All
|
p-value
|
Ethical Review Committee (ERC) is an obstacle to research
|
84.6
(80.0)
|
94.1
(76.9)
|
75.0
(100.0)
|
85.5
|
0.351
(0.082)
|
There is no requirement of ERC in the research institute
|
100.0
(90.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
91.7
(100.0)
|
98.2
|
0.161
(0.101)
|
Research involving human participants directly or indirectly must be reviewed by the ERC
|
96.2
(100.0)
|
100.0
(96.2)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
98.2
|
0.567
(0.567)
|
Clinical trial studies must be reviewed by ERC and approved before trial initiation
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
94.2
(96.2)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
98.2
|
0.320
(0.567)
|
ERC review is not required as the research is scientifically approved
|
84.6
(90.0)
|
94.1
(88.5)
|
91.7
(89.5)
|
89.1
|
0.589
(0.989)
|
Members of the ERC have expertise to review research ethics
|
88.5
(100.0)
|
88.2
(88.5)
|
91.7
(84.2)
|
89.1
|
0.949
(0.427)
|
Members of the ERC must be trained on ethics periodically
|
96.2
(90.0)
|
100.0
(96.2)
|
91.7
(100.0)
|
96.4
|
0.497
(0.391)
|
Concerns or comments of ERC for a reviewed protocol is according to the ethical principles
|
96.2
(90.0)
|
94.1
(96.2)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
92.7
|
0.355
(0.650)
|
Feedback received from ERC for a research protocol is useful
|
92.3
(90.0)
|
82.4
(88.5)
|
91.7
(89.1)
|
89.1
|
0.562
(0.989)
|
Mean ± SD
|
93.2 ± 10.9
92.2 ± 11.8
|
94.1 ± 6.9
91.9 ± 10.2
|
90.8 ±11.4
94.7 ± 8.6
|
92.9 ± 9.9
92.9 ± 9.9
|
0.662
(0.621)
|
Figures in 1st rows are for work sectors: Research, Medical & operations
Figures in 2nd rows ( ) are for Projects involved-in (None, 1-3, ≥4)
Table 10: Attitude toward ethical research practices among trained vs non trained (% ‘positive’ responses)
Questions
|
All Respondents
(N=55)
|
Training Attended
(n=43)
|
Training Not attended
(n=12)
|
p-value
|
Are researchers and teams following the ethical practices?
|
65.5
|
65.1
|
66.7
|
0.920
|
Participants of the study should be informed about the entire details of the study including risk and benefits
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
………
|
Participants can only be enrolled in the study after ethical approval is obtained
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
………
|
Written informed consent form (ICF) should be obtained from the participants for an interventional study
|
90.9
|
95.3
|
75.0
|
0.030
|
Is it mandatory to obtain ethical approval and consent from the patient to use patient's routine clinical test samples for research?
|
96.4
|
95.3
|
100.0
|
0.447
|
Confidentiality and privacy of the research participants must be maintained
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
100.0
|
………
|
Certain information related to study description or risk can be hidden to avoid dropout rate of study participation
|
85.5
|
83.7
|
91.7
|
0.490
|
Is it accepted to use the samples of the previous study in another study even if participants have not agreed for future research?
|
89.1
|
86.0
|
100.0
|
0.170
|
Is it accepted to modify data in accordance to the outcome of research without harming participants?
|
69.1
|
67.4
|
75.0
|
0.616
|
Is it accepted to copy some other's work without giving due credit to the owner?
|
94.5
|
93.0
|
100.0
|
0.347
|
Is it accepted not to cite a written source of information that you used to collect data or ideas?
|
87.3
|
86.0
|
91.7
|
0.605
|
Is it accepted to use another person's data or ideas without acknowledgement?
|
98.2
|
97.7
|
100.0
|
0.594
|
Have you ever tried to manipulate or overrule the decision of ERC?
|
96.4
|
97.7
|
91.7
|
0.326
|
Mean± SD
|
90.2 ±10.6
|
89.8 ±11.2
|
91.7±8.3
|
0.801
|
Table 11: Attitude toward ethical research practices across sectors and number of projects involved in (% ‘positive’ responses)
Questions
|
Research
(None)
|
Medical
(1-3)
|
Operations
(≥ 4)
|
All
|
p-value
|
Are researchers and teams following the ethical practices?
|
73.1
(60.0)
|
64.7
(69.2)
|
50.0
(63.2)
|
65.5
|
0.379
(0.844)
|
Participants of the study should be informed about the entire details of the study including risk and benefits
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
|
---
---
|
Participants can only be enrolled in the study after ethical approval is obtained
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
100.0
|
100.0
|
---
---
|
Written informed consent form (ICF) should be obtained from the participants for an interventional study
|
88.5
(80.0)
|
94.1
(100.0)
|
91.7
(84.2)
|
90.9
|
0.815
(0.079)
|
Is it mandatory to obtain ethical approval and consent from the patient to use patient's routine clinical test samples for research?
|
96.2
(100.0)
|
94.1
(96.2)
|
100.0
(94.7)
|
96.4
|
0.704
(0.769)
|
Confidentiality and privacy of the research participants must be maintained
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
100.0
|
---
---
|
Certain information related to study description or risk can be hidden to avoid dropout rate of study participation
|
88.5
(90.0)
|
82.4
(76.9)
|
83.3
(94.7)
|
85.5
|
0.834
(0.222)
|
Is it accepted to use the samples of the previous study in another study even if participants have not agreed for future research?
|
88.5
(90.0)
|
94.1
(84.6)
|
83.3
(94.7)
|
89.1
|
0.650
(0.558)
|
Is it accepted to modify data in accordance to the outcome of research without harming participants?
|
73.1
(70.0)
|
70.6
(61.5)
|
58.3
(78.9)
|
69.1
|
0.650
(0.458)
|
Is it accepted to copy some other's work without giving due credit to the owner?
|
96.2
(90.0)
|
100.0
(92.3)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
94.5
|
0.133
(0.417)
|
Is it accepted not to cite a written source of information that you used to collect data or ideas?
|
96.2
(90.0)
|
76.5
(76.9)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
87.3
|
0.150
(0.069)
|
Is it accepted to use another person's data or ideas without acknowledgement?
|
100.0
(90.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
91.7
(100.0)
|
98.2
|
0.161
(0.101)
|
Have you ever tried to manipulate or overrule the decision of ERC?
|
100.0
(80.0)
|
100.0
(100.0)
|
83.3
(100.0)
|
96.4
|
0.024
(0.009)
|
Mean ± SD
|
92.3±10.4
87.7±15.0
|
90.5±5.1
89.1±10.2
|
85.3±15.2
93.1±8.1
|
90.2±10.6
90.2±10.6
|
0.163
(0.323)
|
Figures in 1st rows are for work sectors: Research, Medical & operations
Figures in 2nd rows ( ) are for Projects involved-in (None, 1-3, ≥4)
Research Vs Operations (p= 0.038)