English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

To explore the views of Research Ethics Committee (REC) representatives in the European Union (EU) on what the status quo is in terms of RECs’ activities after the approval of trial protocols for clinical studies. This is a qualitative study. The participants in this study are members or representatives of a research ethics committee from the member countries of the European Network of Research Ethics Committees (EUREC) and the United Kingdom. Thematic analysis was the method to assess interview transcripts. Interviews of REC representatives from 19 countries across Europe reveals that REC post-approval activities are predominantly limited to review and approval of protocol amendments. The majority of the RECs do not have mandatory continuing reviews or receipt of notifications of adverse events or protocol violations. In fact, most post-approval activities are the remit of the regulatory authorities. The interviewed members were also of the opinion that RECs in the EU do not have the legislative support, the organizational structure, the expert staff nor time to do active post approval follow-up. Post-approval follow-up activities for clinical studies by RECs is a valuable resource and means for early detection and resolution of protocol deviations and violations. However, a majority of RECs within Europe do not have active post-approval follow-up of approved protocols. The interviews revealed that resource challenges such as time, personnel, and organizational structure contribute to the lack of follow-up by RECs. Some RECs in the represented countries do not identify post-approval follow-up as part of their mandate but instead place emphasis on the culture of trust between the RECs and researchers. Current EU Regulations do not directly address the role of the REC after the approval of clinical trials.

Research ethics committees and post-approval activities: a qualitative study on the perspectives of European research ethics committee representatives