ArticleJAMIA open2022
Researchers experience of using the regulatory affairs information system (RAIS) in strengthening research compliance in a large research program: A case study of the Infectious Diseases Institute (IDI) in Uganda.
Article in JAMIA open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to explore researchers' experience of using the regulatory affairs information system (RAIS) in strengthening research compliance to national ethics guidelines through tracking ethics and regulatory approvals for research projects at the Infectious Diseases Institute. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using purposive sampling of 50 participants who were principal investigators (PI) and study coordinators (SC) of active projects between November 2019 and January 2020. Only 36 of them responded to the survey. We also conducted 12 key informant interviews among PI, SC, and research management at the Institute. We used STATA 13 to analyze responses to the survey. The interviews lasted between 20 and 30 min. We used NVivo 10 software to manage the transcripts and generation of themes. Results: Majority 19 (52.8%) of those who participated in the survey were study coordinators, 19 (52.8%) had participated in more than 5 research studies, 28 (90.3%) had ever received a notification from the RAIS and 26 (92.9%) submitted requests for renewal of their studies approvals to Ethics committees and regulatory bodies 4 weeks prior to expiration dates. The study also examined participants' general understanding of the regulatory requirements and all were aware that RECs and NDA grant approval for a period of 1 year, and 35 (97.2%) that UNCST grants approval for the duration of the study. Three prominent themes; researchers' experiences, benefits, and shortcomings of RAIS were generated from the key informant interviews. Discussion: Having experience in research coupled with a novel automated system provides a platform for a better understanding of research regulatory requirements, hence compliance to the national guidelines. Conclusion: Our case study demonstrates that supporting researchers and research institutions in low resource settings with an automated system in tracking expiration dates for research approvals can facilitate compliance to national ethics guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.