ArticleBMC medical ethics2026
Experiences of researchers in navigating applied research in the MENA region: an exploratory online cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2026. 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.
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.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundResearch productivity has increased in the Middle East North Africa (MENA) region despite a generally non-supportive research environment. This study builds on existing scholarship by exploring researchers' self-assessed skills, capabilities and the barriers they encounter in conducting research and applying research ethics in their contexts.
methodsWe conducted an exploratory cross-sectional online survey with 152 regional research networks from any discipline in six countries across the MENA region. Inclusion criteria were researchers over the age of 18 and having been actively engaged in research involving human participants within the past five years. Descriptive and bivariate analyses, Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to examine statistical differences in respondents' characteristics, knowledge and perceptions of research ethics by gender and education level.
resultsA total of 117 researchers completed the survey; 64% were female, 55% had doctoral degrees, 43% worked at private universities, and 48% conducted research in low- and middle- income countries. The main fields of research were public health (28%), social sciences (18%), medicine (16%), and nursing (16%). Findings were observed at the intrapersonal and research environment levels. At the intrapersonal level, most respondents reported the presence of institutional ethics review processes (91%) and familiarity with ethics procedures (92%), however, only 46% felt confident resolving ethical dilemmas independently, with 83% seeking advice or consulting guidelines. Many expressed the need for more training and mentorship despite the high percentage (68%) reporting having received ethics training. Several challenges were reported at the level of the research environment, including limited time to conduct research (77%), insufficient funding and support (70%), lack of collaboration opportunities (63%), and restricted freedom in disseminating research findings (32%).
conclusionAlthough the vast majority of researchers had received training in research and research ethics, and many were familiar with relevant research ethics guidelines in their field and institution, gaps remained - particularly at the institutional level. Findings highlight the need for systemic improvements in research capacity, ethics support, and supportive institutional environments.
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.