Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees

Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (5):263-266 (1996)
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare the practices of local research ethics committees and the time they take to obtain ethical approval for a multi-centre study. DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of outcome of applications for a multi-centre study to local research ethics committees. SETTING: Thirty-six local research ethics committees covering 38 district health authorities in England. MAIN MEASURES: Response of chairmen and women, the time required to obtain approval, and questions asked in application forms. RESULTS: We received replies from all 36 chairmen contacted: four (11%) granted their approval, and 32 (89%) required our proposal to be considered by their local research ethics committee. Three committees asked us to attend their meetings. The application was approved by all 36 local research ethics committees but the time to obtain ethical approval varied between six to 208 days. One third of the committees did not approve the project within three months, and three took longer than six months. There was considerable variation in the issues raised by local research ethics committees and none conformed exactly to the Royal College of Physicians' guidelines. CONCLUSION: Obtaining ethical approval for a multi-centre study is time-consuming. There is much diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. Our data support the recommendation for a central or regional review body of multi-centre studies which will be acceptable to all local research ethics committees
Keywords info:mesh/Retrospective Studies  info:mesh/Multicenter Studies as Topic  info:mesh/Ethics Committees  info:mesh/Ethical Review  info:mesh/Humans  info:mesh/Ethics Committees, Research  Humans   Retrospective Studies   Research   Time Factors   Ethical Review   Ethics Committees   Ethics Committees, Research   England   Multicenter Studies as Topic  info:mesh/England  info:mesh/Time Factors  info:mesh/Research
Categories (categorize this paper)
Options
 Save to my reading list
Follow the author(s)
My bibliography
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Revision history Request removal from index
 
Download options
PhilPapers Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy on self-archival     Papers currently archived: 9,360
External links
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  •   Try with proxy.
  • Through your library Configure
    References found in this work BETA

    No references found.

    Citations of this work BETA
    Similar books and articles
    Paulina Tindana & Okyere Boateng (2008). The Ghana Experience. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4):277-281.
    David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
    Lonneke M. Poort (2008). The Role of Ethics Committees in Public Debate. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (1):19-35.
    Ghaiaith Hussein (2008). The Sudan Experience. Journal of Academic Ethics 6 (4):289-293.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

    Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.

    Added to index

    2010-09-13

    Total downloads

    1 ( #306,229 of 1,088,831 )

    Recent downloads (6 months)

    0

    How can I increase my downloads?

    My notes
    Sign in to use this feature


    Discussion
    Start a new thread
    Order:
    There  are no threads in this forum
    Nothing in this forum yet.