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)
DOI 10.1136/jme.22.5.263
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
Our Archive


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 28,106
Through your library
References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA
How Local IRBs View Central IRBs in the US.Robert Klitzman - 2011 - BMC Medical Ethics 12 (1):13.

Add more citations

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

Monthly downloads

Added to index

2010-09-13

Total downloads

27 ( #190,032 of 2,171,709 )

Recent downloads (6 months)

1 ( #326,424 of 2,171,709 )

How can I increase my downloads?

My notes
Sign in to use this feature


Discussion
Order:
There  are no threads in this forum
Nothing in this forum yet.

Other forums