Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees.
Open Access
- 1 April 1996
- journal article
- research article
- Published by BMJ in Journal of Medical Ethics
- Vol. 22 (2) , 78-82
- https://doi.org/10.1136/jme.22.2.78
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
This publication has 12 references indexed in Scilit:
- Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards?BMJ, 1995
- Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committeesBMJ, 1995
- Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experienceBMJ, 1995
- Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help?BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1995
- Guidelines for local research ethics committees.BMJ, 1992
- The role of local research ethics committees.BMJ, 1992
- Too many ethical committees.BMJ, 1990
- Towards a national bioethics committee.BMJ, 1990
- Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees.BMJ, 1989
- Evaluating the work of ethical review committees: an observation and a suggestion.Journal of Medical Ethics, 1989