From the analysis of the 16 IDIs, two broad themes of strengths and limitations of REIMS were identified (Table 2).
Strengths of REIMS system
REIMS is convenient to use
Users reported that REIMS can be accessed from any location and at any time. They stated that it has provided convenience of using the system and one can submit their proposal at any time from any location, reviews can be done at any time when the reviewer is ready, progress tracking and management can be done from anywhere.
“REIMS is very convenient with me, sometimes I like to work over the weekend because I have a lot of things during the weekdays… you can do work anytime and you submit…so I think that is quite a good experience…” (IDI / R02)
Some reviewers further highlighted that REIMS had simplified their work throughout the review process. They stated that despite some issues in execution, the system has simplified review and has added efficiency to their work.
“I think as an idea it is excellent, the concept might be great, but the execution might have some issues here and there. REIMS as a system has been really good and it has really streamlined my review process, beforehand I would not be to do fast all the papers that I have gone through for instance and it’s so easy to make comparisons, it is very efficient” (IDI / R05)
Perceived as a better record management system
Improved feedback process
Users reported that the system has improved the feedback process, and they are now able to receive real-time notifications of their proposal progress. Some participants reported that:
“…the system is good as it gives you progress, that it has been accepted, where it is at the moment and if it has been discussed in the meeting, I knew lots of the procedures through the system, like it notifies you the REC has approved, you know, so you get such information…” (IDI / I03)
In addition, some participants highlighted that REIMS has reduced the risk of documents being misplaced as documents are submitted, tracked, and stored electronically.
“… it helps to keep records because also at any time a reviewer can take a look on how many works, they have reviewed, and if someone does not see their ethical clearance can take a look there, so it is technology incorporated it has become quite easier” (IDI / I05)
Managers also reported that REIMS has improved record keeping and management and costs in handling proposals submitted for ethical clearance at the institution.
“…Before they used to submit about 8 proposals and later they saw that it was costly since you also have to duplicate copies whenever you receive comments…as a result you end up leaving the copies in office and storing them is difficult…but now since it is online you can work on them whenever you are free you just need access to internet regardless you are on leave, on a weekend or even out of Dar es Salaam…” (IDI / M01)
Limitations of using REIMS
REIMS demands reliable ICT resources
As one of the limitations in using REIMS, some participants highlighted that the current system necessitates the availability of adequate and reliable ICT devices (computers, laptops, tablets) especially among reviewers to ease the review process of proposals submitted for ethical clearance.
“…Another challenge is working tools, sometimes my computer does not work well, I can even show you now, my computer cannot work without being in what, in charger It is almost going to die you see, so reviewing becomes a challenge, at one point it was broken, proposals stayed for quite some time, I was being asked every day and I told them I have issues with my computer, I can even show you…” (IDI / R04)
Users highlighted some of the limitations to access to REIMS as being determined by institutional internet and server connectivity. They reported that access is still limited and that it is necessary to solve the problem and any reason that limits access to the use of the system.
“Yah, it hasn’t happened to me, sometimes to a number of people but we recently… let’s say to me if the asking person were the ICT, I would say the internet connection. But as you say it can be a small server, small capacity or something else, take it as problematic. What I am saying, access is a problem. Whatever the reason for access that should be solved, if it’s the server capacity, internet connectivity or anything else” (IDI / R06)
Limited reviewer-researcher interaction
Users reported that REIMS limits the possibility for reviewers to provide detailed in text comments and inputs required to improve the proposals during the review process. They stated that the use of an electronic available template with no possibility to upload a detailed reviewed file limits the details of a review that the applicant/researcher can receive to improve their work.
“Yes, in REIMS currently it’s that when the proposal comes, that even if I put track changes, I cannot upload it, the student’s proposal that I have put track changes or author that it is returned to them so as they can see where, but in REIMS currently there is like a template that you complete online based on proposal sections but to put as track changes that is not possible” (IDI / R01)
Some reviewers further reported that the system does not provide the flexibility to use various review templates based on specific review requirements, thus following a structured review system. They stated that there may also be a need to have empirical templates for different categories of applicants so each can be handled based on specific research requirements.
“I think REIMS does not provide a room when if it is an amendment someone is requesting for amendment there is not a specified template on how you should handle amendment …I think we also need to have an empirical template based on researcher’s category…” (IDI / R08)
Users further reported that the system limits interaction among one user and another, say, a reviewer and the principal investigator. They further suggested that the system could be improved to allow for more interaction among users throughout the review process, when required so as to minimize the delays in the process of improving the proposals.
“It would be good if it would reach a point where the reviewer and the one submitting are now interacting instead of having to go through the whole process back and forth….it could be within the same platform…” (IDI / R09)
Some researchers further reported that the system has no feature to allow users, especially researchers, to provide their feedback and submit their claims when utilizing the system. They stated that it is not clear from the system who should be contacted when faced with usability difficulties and that more delays were experienced.
“….. I think what can be improved is there should be timelines, that if you do not hear from us after certain time then contact this person, yes and should be more than one person or if also there should be a system of claims, or it should be through the system itself…there should be a system of putting complains because coming back I think paper based the issue was time and if we do not improve on REIMS it would be more or less useless in terms of your balance” (IDI / I04).