Literature DB >> 8731532

Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees.

M E Redshaw1, A Harris, J D Baum.   

Abstract

The same research proposal was submitted to 24 district health authority (DHA) research ethics committees in different parts of the country. The objective was to obtain permission for a multi-centre research project. The study of neonatal care in different types of unit (regional, subregional and district), required that four health authorities were approached in each of six widely separated health regions in England. Data were collected and compared concerning aspects of processing, including application forms, information required, timing and decision-making. The key finding was that ethics committees received and processed the applications variably, reflecting individual factors and local problems. To improve consensus and facilitate multicentre studies, standard forms and instructions are suggested and the establishment of a national committee or advisory group advocated.

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Department of Health (Great Britain); Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8731532      PMCID: PMC1376918          DOI: 10.1136/jme.22.2.78

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


  12 in total

1.  Too many ethical committees.

Authors:  T J Berry; T E Ades; C S Peckham
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-12-01

2.  Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees.

Authors:  P Garfield
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

3.  Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience.

Authors:  C Middle; A Johnson; T Petty; L Sims; A Macfarlane
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

4.  Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards?

Authors:  A E While
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-09-09

5.  Evaluating the work of ethical review committees: an observation and a suggestion.

Authors:  T Harding; M Ummel
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1989-12       Impact factor: 2.903

6.  Towards a national bioethics committee.

Authors:  S Lock
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1990-05-05

7.  Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees.

Authors:  C Gilbert; K W Fulford; C Parker
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1989-12-09

8.  Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help?

Authors:  Z J Penn; P J Steer
Journal:  Br J Obstet Gynaecol       Date:  1995-01

9.  The trouble with ethics committees.

Authors:  T W Meade
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1994 Mar-Apr

10.  Local research ethics committees. Report of the 2nd National Conference.

Authors:  J Moran
Journal:  J R Coll Physicians Lond       Date:  1992-10
View more
  18 in total

1.  Performance of research ethics committees in Spain. A prospective study of 100 applications for clinical trial protocols on medicines.

Authors:  R Dal-Ré; J Espada; R Ortega
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Research ethics committees: a regional approach.

Authors:  C C Macpherson
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  1999-04

3.  Multicentre research ethics committees: have they helped?

Authors:  I Larcombe; M Mott
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 5.344

Review 4.  Ethical issues in the development of new agents.

Authors:  C K Daugherty
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 3.850

5.  Research governance delays for a multicentre non-interventional study.

Authors:  Andrew A Mallick; Finbar J K O'Callaghan
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 5.344

6.  Innovations in the Ethical Review of Health-Related Quality Improvement and Research: The Alberta Research Ethics Community Consensus Initiative (ARECCI).

Authors:  Brad Hagen; Maeve O'Beirne; Sunil Desai; Michael Stingl; Cathy Anne Pachnowski; Sarah Hayward
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2007-05

7.  Research ethics committee auditing: the experience of a university hospital.

Authors:  Daniela Marchetti; Angelico Spagnolo; Marina Cicerone; Fidelia Cascini; Giuseppe La Monaca; Antonio G Spagnolo
Journal:  HEC Forum       Date:  2013-09

8.  Ethical approval for research involving geographically dispersed subjects: unsuitability of the UK MREC/LREC system and relevance to uncommon genetic disorders.

Authors:  J C Lewis; S Tomkins; J R Sampson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.903

9.  Regulatory and ethical principles in research involving children and individuals with developmental disabilities.

Authors:  Eric G Yan; Kerim M Munir
Journal:  Ethics Behav       Date:  2004

10.  Variation among institutional review boards in evaluating the design of a multicenter randomized trial.

Authors:  A R Stark; J E Tyson; P L Hibberd
Journal:  J Perinatol       Date:  2009-10-01       Impact factor: 2.521

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.