Scholarlink

Background <p>In Thailand, online electronic submission systems play an essential role in facilitating research review. Developing a system that addresses the diverse needs of all stakeholders remains a major challenge for the research committee. This study examined the satisfaction levels of researchers, committee members, and institutional review board (IRB) staff using the web-based Chulalongkorn University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) submission system. It also compared the turnaround times of the previous paper-based submission process and the electronic system.</p> Methods <p>A quantitative design employing tailored online questionnaires was used to assess satisfaction among all stakeholder groups. Descriptive statistics summarized the data. Turnaround time was compared across three phases: (1) paper-based submission (year 2021), (2) Electronic Phase I (transition period, January 2022–February 2024), and (3) Electronic Phase II (fully implemented, March–December 2024). Differences across phases were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.</p> Results <p>A total of 125 participants took part in the study, including 85 researchers, 38 committee members, and 2 IRB staffs. Among researchers, 28.2% were very satisfied, 51.8% satisfied, 18.8% neutral, and 1.2% dissatisfied. Committee members reported 51.4% very satisfied, 45.9% satisfied, and 2.7% neutral responses. Both IRB staff members were either very satisfied (50%) or satisfied 50%. The turnaround time for expedited reviews was significantly reduced in both Electronic Phase I and Phase II (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), while exemption reviews significantly improved in Phase II (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). No statistically significant change was observed for full board reviews; the median time to initial review and final approval in the paper-based system was 19 and 37&#xa0;days, respectively and increased slightly to 23 and 39&#xa0;days in Phase 1 and to 24 and 41&#xa0;days in Phase II.&#xa0;There was an increase in the median of all type reviews combined in Phase I, and subsequently decreased in Phase II. This is also because of the modification of reviewers’ composition of the exemption review in Phase I and phase II and the expedited review time was significantly decreased since Phase I.</p> Conclusion <p>Researchers, committee members, and IRB staff expressed overall satisfaction with the CUREC electronic submission system. Although some review categories showed longer timelines, the electronic platform enhanced efficiency in certain review types and facilitated administrative processes. These findings provide insights for refining electronic submission platforms and advancing digital transformation in research ethics oversight.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing satisfaction and performance of the CUREC electronic submission system

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年1月22日

查看全文
  • Waraya Krisnoi,
  • Issaree Khemakanaka,
  • Peeraphon Lueboonthavatchai,
  • Prida Tasanapradit,
  • Raveenan Mingpakanee,
  • Nuntaree Chaichanawongsaroj

摘要

Background

In Thailand, online electronic submission systems play an essential role in facilitating research review. Developing a system that addresses the diverse needs of all stakeholders remains a major challenge for the research committee. This study examined the satisfaction levels of researchers, committee members, and institutional review board (IRB) staff using the web-based Chulalongkorn University Research Ethics Committee (CUREC) submission system. It also compared the turnaround times of the previous paper-based submission process and the electronic system.

Methods

A quantitative design employing tailored online questionnaires was used to assess satisfaction among all stakeholder groups. Descriptive statistics summarized the data. Turnaround time was compared across three phases: (1) paper-based submission (year 2021), (2) Electronic Phase I (transition period, January 2022–February 2024), and (3) Electronic Phase II (fully implemented, March–December 2024). Differences across phases were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

Results

A total of 125 participants took part in the study, including 85 researchers, 38 committee members, and 2 IRB staffs. Among researchers, 28.2% were very satisfied, 51.8% satisfied, 18.8% neutral, and 1.2% dissatisfied. Committee members reported 51.4% very satisfied, 45.9% satisfied, and 2.7% neutral responses. Both IRB staff members were either very satisfied (50%) or satisfied 50%. The turnaround time for expedited reviews was significantly reduced in both Electronic Phase I and Phase II (p < 0.05), while exemption reviews significantly improved in Phase II (p < 0.05). No statistically significant change was observed for full board reviews; the median time to initial review and final approval in the paper-based system was 19 and 37 days, respectively and increased slightly to 23 and 39 days in Phase 1 and to 24 and 41 days in Phase II. There was an increase in the median of all type reviews combined in Phase I, and subsequently decreased in Phase II. This is also because of the modification of reviewers’ composition of the exemption review in Phase I and phase II and the expedited review time was significantly decreased since Phase I.

Conclusion

Researchers, committee members, and IRB staff expressed overall satisfaction with the CUREC electronic submission system. Although some review categories showed longer timelines, the electronic platform enhanced efficiency in certain review types and facilitated administrative processes. These findings provide insights for refining electronic submission platforms and advancing digital transformation in research ethics oversight.