J Korean Med Sci.  2025 Feb;40(4):e9. 10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e9.

Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Views, and Perceptions of the Roles and Functions of Research Ethics Committees: A Web-Based Cross-Sectional Survey

• Seiil B
• Zimba O
• Korkosz M
• Bekaryssova D
• Zhakipbekov K
• Qumar AB
• Yessirkepov M
• Kocyigit BF

• KMID: 2564236
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2025.40.e9

Abstract

Background
This survey examined healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and perceptions of the responsibilities and functions of Research Ethics Committees (RECs). The study aimed to analyze ethical principles and operational issues faced by RECs and guide researchers, journal editors, and publishers on publication ethics notes.
Methods
A cross-sectional survey was conducted using the SurveyMonkey.com platform to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge, views, and practices concerning RECs' responsibilities, functions, and roles. The survey focused on REC definitions, functions, research types that require REC approval, and research protocols’ evaluation time frames. It also reflected on ethics considerations and REC adaptations during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, REC member qualifications, evaluation periods, and additional challenges confronting RECs. Convenience sampling was adopted, and the survey was distributed via social media platforms.
Results
The survey was based on an analysis of questionnaires filled by 182 responders (104 females [57.1%] and 76 males [41.8%]), with a median age of 36. The survey respondents were from 28 different countries. The top three countries with most responders were Kazakhstan (n = 83), Türkiye (n = 33) and Poland (n = 10). Most participants (n = 128, 70.3%) were familiar with the definition of RECs and recognized the importance of REC approval for clinical trials and interventional research. Research study protocols should be submitted for REC evaluation and approval during the planning phase, according to 145 responders (79.7%). Participants emphasized the significance of formal ethics training for REC members.The involvement in research approved by RECs was also viewed as an important precondition for membering RECs. Participants suggested online submissions (n = 127, 69.8%), virtual meetings (n = 99, 54.4%), and fast evaluation schedules for low-risk research protocols (n = 77, 42.3%) during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Conclusion
Healthcare professionals comprehend the basics of REC duties and responsibilities. However, improvements in the consistency and efficiency of ethics evaluations are still warranted. The COVID-19 pandemic stressed the importance of adaptive REC procedures; researchers, editors, and publishers learned a vitally important lesson. More efforts are warranted to increase REC member training, simplify administrative procedures, and define standard operating procedures in times of crisis. Continuous progress in these areas will allow RECs to maintain high ethical standards while supporting productive research. Editors and publishers will greatly benefit from related advances in research ethics considerations.

Keyword

Editorial Policies; Health Personnel; Periodicals as Topic; Publication Ethics; Publishing; Research Ethics Committees; Surveys and Questionnaires

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Participants' backgrounds in scientific research studies.PhD = Doctor of Philosophy, MSc = Master in Sciences, MD = Medical Doctor.

• 

  Fig. 2 Institutions where research studies are conducted.

• 

  Fig. 3 Distribution of participants by countries.

• 

  Fig. 4 The study types that require evaluation, approval, and monitoring by ethics committees.

• 

  Fig. 5 Conditions requiring research ethics assessment at multiple sites.

• 

  Fig. 6 The main ethical principles of research studies.

• 

  Fig. 7 The main functions of ethics committees.

• 

  Fig. 8 The formats and structures of work ethics committees should be prioritized during the pandemic.COVID-19 = coronavirus disease 2019.

Reference

1. Rotolo D, Camerani R, Grassano N, Martin BR. Why do firms publish? A systematic literature review and a conceptual framework. Res Policy. 2022; 51(10):104606.

2. Mehta P, Zimba O, Gasparyan AY, Seiil B, Yessirkepov M. Ethics committees: structure, roles, and issues. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(25):e198. PMID: 37365729.

3. Brown C, Spiro J, Quinton S. The role of research ethics committees: friend or foe in educational research? An exploratory study. Br Educ Res J. 2020; 46(4):747–769.

4. Scheibner J, Ienca M, Kechagia S, Troncoso-Pastoriza JR, Raisaro JL, Hubaux JP, et al. Data protection and ethics requirements for multisite research with health data: a comparative examination of legislative governance frameworks and the role of data protection technologies. J Law Biosci. 2020; 7(1):lsaa010. PMID: 32733683.

5. Rothstein MA, Zawati MH, Thorogood A, Beauvais MJS, Joly Y, Brothers KB, et al. Streamlining ethics review for international health research. Science. 2022; 375(6583):825–826. PMID: 35201881.

6. Salamanca-Buentello F, Katz R, Silva DS, Upshur REG, Smith MJ. Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international study. PLoS One. 2024; 19(4):e0292512. PMID: 38626030.

7. Gasparyan AY, Kumar AB, Yessirkepov M, Zimba O, Nurmashev B, Kitas GD. Global health strategies in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic and other unprecedented threats. J Korean Med Sci. 2022; 37(22):e174. PMID: 35668684.

8. Yessirkepov M, Nurmashev B, Gasparyan AY. Hypotheses and ethics in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic. Cent Asian J Med Hypotheses Ethics. 2021; 2(1):10–13.

9. Kasherman L, Madariaga A, Liu Q, Bonilla L, McMullen M, Liu SL, et al. Ethical frameworks in clinical research processes during COVID-19: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2021; 11(7):e047076.

10. Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Designing, conducting, and reporting survey studies: a primer for researchers. J Korean Med Sci. 2023; 38(48):e403. PMID: 38084027.

11. Xu A, Baysari MT, Stocker SL, Leow LJ, Day RO, Carland JE. Researchers’ views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: a qualitative study. BMC Med Ethics. 2020; 21(1):93. PMID: 33008387.

12. Fletcher J. Ethical approval for all studies involving human participants. CMAJ. 2015; 187(2):91. PMID: 25512648.

13. Kiani AK, Pheby D, Henehan G, Brown R, Sieving P, Sykora P, et al. Ethical considerations regarding animal experimentation. J Prev Med Hyg. 2022; 63(2):Suppl 3. E255–E266. PMID: 36479489.

14. Glasziou P, Scott AM, Chalmers I, Kolstoe SE, Davies HT. Improving research ethics review and governance can improve human health. J R Soc Med. 2021; 114(12):556–562. PMID: 34761994.

15. Patel TC, Tripathi RK, Bagle TR, Rege NN. Implementation of an educational program to promote research ethics in undergraduate medical students. Perspect Clin Res. 2021; 12(4):216–222. PMID: 34760650.

16. Nikravanfard N, Khorasanizadeh F, Zendehdel K. Research ethics education in post-graduate medical curricula in I.R. Iran. Developing World Bioeth. 2017; 17(2):77–83.

17. Reyes M. Research in the time of COVID-19: challenges of research ethics committees. J ASEAN Fed Endocr Soc. 2020; 35(1):29–32. PMID: 33442166.

18. Faust A, Sierawska A, Krüger K, Wisgalla A, Hasford J, Strech D. Challenges and proposed solutions in making clinical research on COVID-19 ethical: a status quo analysis across German research ethics committees. BMC Med Ethics. 2021; 22(1):96. PMID: 34281535.

19. Park YS, Kim OJ. Government initiatives for research ethics during COVID-19 pandemic in Korea. J Korean Med Sci. 2024; 39(12):e116. PMID: 38565174.