Evaluation of Research Ethics Committees: Criteria for the Ethical Quality of the Review Process

2017 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 152-176 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregor Scherzinger ◽  
Monika Bobbert
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees

scholarly journals Research ethics by design: A collaborative research design proposal

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 84-91
Author(s):  
Donald S Borrett ◽  
Heather Sampson ◽  
Ann Cavoukian
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Research Design ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Personal Data ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Collective Benefit ◽  
Design Proposal

Privacy by Design, a globally accepted framework for personal data management and privacy protection, advances the view that privacy cannot be assured solely by compliance with regulatory frameworks but must become an organisation’s default mode of operation. We are proposing a similar template for the research ethics review process. The Research Ethics by Design framework involves research ethics committees engaging researchers during the design phase of the proposal so that ethical considerations may be directly embedded in the science as opposed to being viewed as addendums after the fact. This collaborative research design proposal results in the establishment of a culture of ethical research rather than research with ethical oversight. Both researchers and research ethics committees come to view the review process as one in which individual protection and collective benefit co-exist in a doubly-enabling positive-sum manner.

Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practice Regarding Research Ethics Committees Among Health Care Faculty at Two Public Universities in Jordan

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-382 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nehad M. Ayoub ◽  
Abeer M. Qandil ◽  
J. Allen McCutchan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Middle Eastern ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Attitudes And Practices

Human research at Jordanian universities is increasing. This descriptive cross-sectional survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and practices concerning the procedures and review process of research ethics committees (RECs) among faculty in health sciences in two major Jordanian universities. Most faculty reported having no training in research ethics in their current institutions. Although knowledge of RECs’ roles and functions was adequate, deficiencies were found regarding the advisory and monitoring roles for RECs raised in this survey. Faculty expressed concerns about levels of ethical training for members of RECs and potential conflicts of interest and bias in review process. RECs should provide ethics training for faculty, and future research should examine the functioning of the RECs in Jordan and other Middle Eastern countries.

scholarly journals Ethical review of COVID-19 research in the Netherlands; a mixed-method evaluation among medical research ethics committees and investigators

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (7) ◽  
pp. e0255040
Author(s):  
R. IJkema ◽  
M. J. P. A. Janssens ◽  
J. A. M. van der Post ◽  
C. M. Licht
Keyword(s):  
The Netherlands ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Registration System ◽  
Medical Research Ethics

Background During the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need for accelerated review of COVID-19 research by Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs). In the Netherlands this led to the implementation of so-called ‘fast-track-review-procedures’ (FTRPs) to enable a swift start of urgent and relevant research. The objective of this study is to evaluate FTRPs of MRECs in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with the regular review procedures (RRPs). Methods and findings An explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted. Online questionnaires and four group interviews were conducted among MREC representatives and investigators of COVID-19 research. In addition, data from a national research registration system was requested. Main outcome measures are differences in timelines, quality of the review and satisfaction between FTRPs and RRPs. The total number of review days was shorter in FTRP (median 10.5) compared to RRPs (median 98.0). Review days attributable to the MRECs also declined in FTRPs (median 8.0 versus 50.0). This shortening can be explained by installing ad hoc (sub)committees, full priority given to COVID-19 research, regular research put on hold, online review meetings and administrative leniency. The shorter timelines did not affect the perceived quality of the review and ethical and legal aspects were not weighted differently. Both MREC representatives and investigators were generally satisfied with the review of COVID-19 research. Weaknesses identified were the lack of overview of COVID-19 research and central collaboration and coordination, the delay of review of regular research, and limited reachability of secretariats. Conclusions This study shows that accelerated review is feasible during emergency situations. We did not find evidence that review quality was compromised and both investigators and MRECs were content with the FTRP. To improve future medical ethical review during pandemic situations and beyond, distinguishing main and side issues, working digitally, and (inter)national collaboration and coordination are important.

scholarly journals Ethical Concerns in Suicide Research: Results of an International Researcher Survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 383-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karl Andriessen ◽  
Lennart Reifels ◽  
Karolina Krysinska ◽  
Jo Robinson ◽  
Georgia Dempster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Suicide Prevention ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
International Association ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Ethical Concerns ◽  
International Researcher

Researchers and research ethics committees share a common goal of conducting ethically sound research. However, little is known of researchers’ experiences in obtaining ethics approval for suicide-related studies. This study aimed to investigate what concerns researchers have received on suicide-related ethics applications and how they dealt with it. Thirty-four respondents, recruited through the International Association for Suicide Prevention, filled out an online survey. The study found that researchers have received important concerns regarding potential harm and researchers’ responsibilities to participants. Researchers modified their application and/or consulted their research ethics committee in response to the concerns, which had a positive/neutral impact on their given study. Anticipating concerns and improved collaboration between researchers and research ethics committees should protect the quality of suicide prevention research.

How Much Influence Do Various Members Have within Research Ethics Committees?

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-532 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul M. McNeill ◽  
Catherine A. Berglund ◽  
Ian W. Webster
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Carcinoma In Situ ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Critical Importance ◽  
Research Subjects ◽  
Unethical Research ◽  
The World

Throughout the world, research ethics committees are relied on to prevent unethical research and protect research subjects. Given that reliance, the composition of committees and the manner in which decisions are arrived at by committee members is of critical importance. There have been Instances in which an inadequate review process has resulted in serious harm to research subjects. Deficient committee review was identified as one of the factors In a study in New Zealand which resulted in the suffering and death of many women diagnosed with carcinoma in situ.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document