The centralized Research Ethics Committee at the university level has several virtues; it becomes easier to develop institutionally, easier to monitor and evaluate, and has the potential to get better resource allocation, better process quality control, wider access to services, and income generation for the institution. This research aims to develop institutional design through organizational structure, division of study fields, and service operational procedures. The type of research used is qualitative, and the sampling technique used is purposive sampling. Data was collected through workshops, Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and benchmarking to other universities, and data was analyzed using content analysis. The development of institutions and organizational structures at the university level in this study is arranged in 3 main components, namely: the University Research Ethics Committee Team (consisting of the Chairman, Vice Chair (who acts as secretary) and the Coordinator of the Study Field), the research protocol ethics review team and the technical support team of the Ethics Committee (such as: IT, finance and administrative teams). Meanwhile, the scope developed is divided into four scopes of research ethics study: health, education, science and technology, and social humanities. The scope is divided into 29 research study areas. In addition to determining the scope and field, the type of document review and procedure must also be specified. This study is divided into three types: exempted, expedited, and full board, which have been prepared with SOPs.
Widowati et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: