To understand the attitudes, awareness, subjective norms and intention of physicians toward human research participant protection , we surveyed 2,425 physicians between September 2000 and January 2001 in a cross-sectional survey of 11 medical centers and medical school hospitals in Taiwan. Response rate was 81%. Physicians' attitudes, awareness, subjective norms and intention to comply with HRPP requirements were measured via a self-administered questionnaire. We found that while 90% of responde…
Read moreTo understand the attitudes, awareness, subjective norms and intention of physicians toward human research participant protection , we surveyed 2,425 physicians between September 2000 and January 2001 in a cross-sectional survey of 11 medical centers and medical school hospitals in Taiwan. Response rate was 81%. Physicians' attitudes, awareness, subjective norms and intention to comply with HRPP requirements were measured via a self-administered questionnaire. We found that while 90% of respondents had never heard of IRB, Nuremberg Code, Declaration of Helsinki, Belmont Report, U.R.M.S.B.J., or JIRB, more than 78% of total respondents showed strong response in 4 items of behavioral belief about the significance of HRPP in intervention studies. Around 22% did not recognize IRB reviews as important for those intervention studies not regulated by the existing Medical Care Act. In the measure of physicians' beliefs toward HRPP as related to interaction studies, over 59% favored requirements that research participants be well informed and that informed consent be obtained. Only 43% believed an IRB review was unimportant in conducting an interaction study. Physicians report that they place more attention on selecting patients carefully than on fully informing research participants, obtaining informed consent or submitting a proposal for IRB review. Based on our regression results, physicians' attitudes were highly correlated with their intent to be involved in IRB reviewed process. The results of our study suggest that physicians in Taiwan are not now generally aware of HRPP. Attitudes about protecting research participants varied among different types of studies. This consistent lack of awareness combined with a lack of official regulation shows that the HRPP system in Taiwan may not now be able to adequately protect the safety and rights of human research subjects. In addition, our evidence shows that by changing physicians' attitudes towards HRPP, we may accelerate progress in developing, improving, and implementing HRPP
