96 - Needs and Preferences of Research Ethics Board Members in the Development of a New TCPS 2 Training Program in Canada

Background:  Despite the crucial role of Research Ethics Boards (REBs) in upholding the ethical standards of human participant research, many countries lack tailored educational opportunities for REB members. This study investigates the demographic attributes, educational preferences, and training needs of Canadian REB members to guide the development of future training programs.

Methods:  We analyzed the findings of a nationwide survey involving 752 REB members who participated in the Course on Research Ethics (CORE) between 2013 and 2021. CORE is a federally recognized asynchronous online training program on our national research ethics policy—the Tri-Council Policy Statement 2 (TCPS 2). CORE is mandated for many Canadian researchers and REB members. Embedded in the CORE training portal and distributed to participants before training participation, this survey collected data on participants' general and REB-specific demographics, preference in education modality, and understanding of their responsibilities as REB members through a combination of closed- and open-ended questions. We analyzed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics to explore trends in demographic status and differences in educational preferences. We examined the qualitative data through thematic analysis to identify differences in REB members' perceptions of their roles and how variations compare to TCPS 2 guidance.

Results:  Our data revealed a diverse REB demographic profile with some discrepancies in training modality preferences based on age, geographic location, institution, experience with ethics review, and the type of research reviewed. Most participants' preferred online tutorials and webinars, followed by certificate program, for which interest has significantly increased over the years. Regarding their roles, participants disagreed on the relevance of evaluating the scientific merit of ethics proposals. They emphasized the importance of ensuring informed consent and minimizing risks to participants, but less frequently addressed contemporary issues of respect and justice, such as researcher-participant power imbalance, cultural differences, and fair participation. Further, participants seldomly mentioned managing institutional and researchers' conflicts of interest. Lastly, they described the relationship between REB and researchers differently; some described the relationship as authoritative and procedural, whereas others as teaching and collaborative.

Limitations: Variability in response rates across questions and reliance on self-reported data could influence validity of results. Corroborating these data with other sources, such as observations or field notes from REB meetings, could enhance validity. The initial survey design did not allow for later differentiation of educational preferences across certain REB demographics, such as community versus research-based REB members, which presents a question of interest for future research.

Discussion:  Our findings underscore the need to develop flexible, accessible, standardized educational resources, such as by leveraging digital platforms, to meet the evolving needs of REB members across Canada. Future initiatives should address discrepancies in REBs' understanding and application of the national research ethics policy (TCPS 2) that may result in suboptimal ethics enforcement. Training should provide guidance and clarification on best practices pertaining various facets of REB practice, from the review of ethics proposals to communication with researchers. This strategy will help foster a consistent, robust ethics review process that promotes ethical research practices nationally.