Literature DB >> 19482984

Standards for research ethics committees: purpose, problems and the possibilities of other approaches.

H Davies1, F Wells, M Czarkowski.   

Abstract

Criticism of ethical review of research continues and research ethics committees (RECs) need to demonstrate that they are "fit for purpose" by meeting acknowledged standards of process, debate and outcome. This paper reports a workshop in Warsaw in April 2008, organised by the European Forum for Good Clinical Practice, on the problems of setting standards for RECs in the European Union. Representatives from 27 countries were invited; 16 were represented. Problems identified were the limited and variable resources, difficulties of setting standards for ethical debate and its outcomes and that REC members, as volunteers, may resent the imposition of standards. Other ways to set standards were discussed, including analysis of current multicentre review, collecting REC member reports for review, learning from appeals and feedback from applicants, and use of other regional and national meetings. The place of a central, national board or ethics committee was debated as was the need for collaborating with partners in other fields.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19482984     DOI: 10.1136/jme.2008.027722

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Med Ethics        ISSN: 0306-6800            Impact factor:   2.903


  4 in total

1.  Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.

Authors:  Hanna Ezzat; Sue Ross; Peter von Dadelszen; Tara Morris; Robert Liston; Laura A Magee
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Consensus standards for introductory e-learning courses in human participants research ethics.

Authors:  John R Williams; Dominique Sprumont; Marie Hirtle; Clement Adebamowo; Paul Braunschweiger; Susan Bull; Christian Burri; Marek Czarkowski; Chien Te Fan; Caroline Franck; Eugenjius Gefenas; Antoine Geissbuhler; Ingrid Klingmann; Bocar Kouyaté; Jean-Pierre Kraehenbhul; Mariana Kruger; Keymanthri Moodley; Francine Ntoumi; Thomas Nyirenda; Alexander Pym; Henry Silverman; Sara Tenorio
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2013-08-19       Impact factor: 2.903

3.  Social and Communicative Functions of Informed Consent Forms in East Asia and Beyond.

Authors:  Go Yoshizawa; Teguh H Sasongko; Chih-Hsing Ho; Kazuto Kato
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2017-07-20       Impact factor: 4.599

4.  A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.

Authors:  Stuart G Nicholls; Tavis P Hayes; Jamie C Brehaut; Michael McDonald; Charles Weijer; Raphael Saginur; Dean Fergusson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-07-30       Impact factor: 3.240

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.