Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees

Journal of Medical Ethics 22 (2):78-82 (1996)
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 info:mesh/Government Regulation  info:mesh/Informed Consent  info:mesh/Multicenter Studies as Topic  info:mesh/Clinical Trials as Topic  info:mesh/Ethics Committees  info:mesh/Ethical Review  info:mesh/Research Design  info:mesh/Humans  info:mesh/Ethics Committees, Research  Humans   Neonatal Nursing   Research Design   Government Regulation   Informed Consent   Ethical Review   Ethics Committees   Ethics Committees, Research   Infant, Newborn   Legal Guardians   England   Female   Male   Clinical Trials as Topic   Multicenter Studies as Topic  info:mesh/England  info:mesh/Legal Guardians  info:mesh/Neonatal Nursing  info:mesh/Male  info:mesh/Female  info:mesh/Infant, Newborn
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
    David Shaw (2011). The Ethics Committee as Ghost Author. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (12):706-706.
    Analytics

    Monthly downloads

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

    Added to index

    2010-09-13

    Total downloads

    0

    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.