5 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
E. L. Angell [3]E. Angell [2]
  1. 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.
    We analysed research ethics committee (REC) letters. We found that RECs frequently identify process errors in applications from researchers that are not deemed “favourable” at first review. Errors include procedural violations (identified in 74% of all applications), missing information (68%), slip-ups (44%) and discrepancies (25%). Important questions arise about why the level of error identified by RECs is so high, and about how errors of different types should be handled.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. M. Dixon-Woods & E. L. Angell (2009). Research Involving Adults Who Lack Capacity: How Have Research Ethics Committees Interpreted the Requirements? Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (6):377-381.
    Two separate regulatory regimes govern research with adults who lack capacity to consent in England and Wales: the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004 (“the Regulations”). A service evaluation was conducted to investigate how research ethics committees (RECs) are interpreting the requirements. With the use of a coding scheme and qualitative software, a sample of REC decision letters where applicants indicated that their project involved adults who lacked mental capacity was analysed. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. E. L. Angell & M. Dixon-Woods (2008). Style Matters: An Analysis of 100 Research Ethics Committee Decision Letters. Research Ethics 4 (3):101-105.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. E. L. Angell, C. J. Jackson, R. E. Ashcroft, A. Bryman, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods (2007). Is 'Inconsistency' in Research Ethics Committee Decision-Making Really a Problem? An Empirical Investigation and Reflection. Clinical Ethics 2 (2):92-99.
    Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are frequently a focus of complaints from researchers, but evidence about the operation and decisions of RECs tends to be anecdotal. We conducted a systematic study to identify and compare the ethical issues raised in 54 letters to researchers about the same 18 applications submitted to three RECs over one year. The most common type of ethical trouble identified in REC letters related to informed consent, followed by scientific design and conduct, care and protection of research (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. E. Angell, A. J. Sutton, K. Windridge & M. Dixon-Woods (2006). Consistency in Decision Making by Research Ethics Committees: A Controlled Comparison. Journal of Medical Ethics 32 (11):662-664.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation