Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (5):393-395 (2008)
|Abstract||Background: In view of the increasing complexity of research ethics committee (REC) applications and thus the time and expense involved in completing the forms, continual monitoring of outcome of clinical research studies for which ethics applications have been submitted is essential in determining whether resources are being effectively used, or alternatively whether significant numbers of research proposals are abandoned because of lack of funding or manpower. Previously published surveys for which data are available examined outcome of studies receiving REC approval 10 or more years ago. Methods: A prospective questionnaire-based survey sent out in July 2006 to all 506 principal investigators who submitted research ethics applications to nine Greater Manchester RECs between April 2004 and March 2005. Data on the outcome of REC applications, and the status of the research study were collected and analysed. Results: 288 of the 506 (57%) questionnaires were returned. 97% of REC applications were approved, and 87% of studies were in progress or had been completed 1–2 years after approval had been granted. Researchers employed by universities (51%), healthcare (43%) and the pharmaceutical industry (6%) had similar rates of success in initiating research studies. Conclusions: This survey suggests that most research studies submitted to RECs in Manchester, UK are approved and initiated|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Evelyne Decullier, Véronique Lhéritier & François Chapuis (2005). The Activity of French Research Ethics Committees and Characteristics of Biomedical Research Protocols Involving Humans: A Retrospective Cohort Study. [REVIEW] BMC Medical Ethics 6 (1):1-10.
David Hunter, Tis but a Scratch: The Human Tissue Act and the Use of Tissue for Research, Issues for Research Ethics Committees.
G. Kent (1999). Responses by Four Local Research Ethics Committees to Submitted Proposals. Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (3):274-277.
E. Angell & M. Dixon-Woods (2009). Do Research Ethics Committees Identify Process Errors in Applications for Ethical Approval? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (2):130-132.
Ellen L. Csikai (1998). The Status of Hospital Ethics Committees in Pennsylvania. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 7 (01):104-107.
Andreas Hoecht (2011). Whose Ethics, Whose Accountability? A Debate About University Research Ethics Committees. Ethics and Education 6 (3):253 - 266.
Stuart F. Spicker (ed.) (1998). The Healthcare Ethics Committee Experience: Selected Readings From Hec Forum. Krieger Pub. Co..
Sheila A. M. McLean (2009). Clinical Ethics Consultation in the United Kingdom. Diametros 22:76 – 89.
David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
Gregory J. Hayes (1995). Ethics Committees: Group Process Concerns and the Need for Research. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 4 (01):83-.
Kate T. Christensen & Robin Tucker (1997). Ethics Without Walls: The Transformation of Ethics Committees in the New Healthcare Environment. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (03):299-.
Robyn S. Shapiro, John P. Klein & Kristen A. Tym (1997). Wisconsin Healthcare Ethics Committees. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 6 (03):288-.
Paul M. McNeill, Catherine A. Berglund & Ian W. Webster (1994). How Much Influence Do Various Members Have Within Research Ethics Committees? Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 3 (04):522-.
John R. Stone (2010). Commentary: Mrs. J—Culture and Healthcare Ethics Committees. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19 (04):537-540.
Hans-Peter Graf (2013). Are the Votes of Ethics Committees in Germany for the Protection of Clinical Study Trial Subjects “Sovereign Acts?”. Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (2):341-354.
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-13
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?