Differences between Public and Private Research Ethics Committees in México City: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Describe the problems facing research ethics committees (RECs) in Mexico City. Methodo. A qualitative study with purposive sampling, discussion groups and grounded theory focused on public and private sector RECs in health institutions in Mexico City. Results. Significant differences were detected between public and private RECs, mainly with respect to their workload and research priorities. The protocols approved by public RECs are assumed by the institution as whole. They address each case as health team. In contrast, the private RECs place accountability for the protocols on the chief researcher, who assumes that responsibility individually. The private RECs have an agenda focused on reports of adverse effects and the legality of the process, while the public RECs also generally afford consideration to the relevance of research for patients. Both are paid for the review. Both agree on prioritizing the ethics of protocols for the benefit of the patient. Both are aware the pharmaceutical industry has its research priorities. The public RECs deal mainly with epidemiological research, while the private RECs are concerned essentially with therapeutic research.