A Novel Framework for Reflecting on the Functioning of Research Ethics Review Panels

2007 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Colin Macduff ◽  
Andrew McKie ◽  
Sheelagh Martindale ◽  
Anne Marie Rennie ◽  
Bernice West ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Nursing Education ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Rapid Change ◽  
Health Care Research ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Review Panel ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review

In the past decade structures and processes for the ethical review of UK health care research have undergone rapid change. Although this has focused users' attention on the functioning of review committees, it remains rare to read a substantive view from the inside. This article presents details of processes and findings resulting from a novel structured reflective exercise undertaken by a newly formed research ethics review panel in a university school of nursing and midwifery. By adopting and adapting some of the knowledge to be found in the art and science of malt whisky tasting, a framework for critical reflection is presented and applied. This enables analysis of the main contemporary issues for a review panel that is primarily concerned with research into nursing education and practice. In addition to structuring the panel's own literary narrative, the framework also generates useful visual representation for further reflection. Both the analysis of issues and the framework itself are presented as of potential value to all nurses, health care professionals and educationalists with an interest in ethical review.

Making Ethics Work in Collaborative Projects

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Emily Mauldon
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Primary Health Care ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethical Research ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Primary Health

This article discusses problems a research team had managing their ethical obligations during a short project, and considers the implications of these problems for better understanding and carrying out ethical research in the future. Two key points will be proposed. Initially, it will be argued that the culture of ethical research as articulated within the research community may not be universally accepted within the primary health care sector. The nature of "ethical conduct" within clinical practice, service provision and research is not the same. Further, practical difficulties the researchers experienced while trying to gain approval from ethics committees and implement the proposed research plan highlight some ways in which institutional ethical review processes are structurally unsuited to the requirements of small collaborative projects. Understanding the different ways in which the term "ethics" is used will allow for a more expedient translation of concepts between different health professionals. Recognising the practical constraints ethical review places on the research process may help reduce some of the frustration primary health care professionals can experience when faced with the requirements of research ethics committees. Due to the history of, and cultural commitment to, ethical research within the university sector, those with formal academic training in research are well placed to assume responsibility for managing the ethics process when involved in cross-sectoral research. This responsibility may include the need to educate team members and study participants about the importance of research ethics.

Categorization of Investigation: Defining the Ethical Questions

2006 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ray Godfrey
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Ethical Question ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Practical Suggestion ◽  
Clear Thinking ◽  
The Relationship

This paper draws attention to a simple distinction that, when ignored, considerably distorts discussion of what should be subject to what form of ethical review and by whom. The distinction is between two types of ethical questions that can be asked about any investigation, and indeed about many other types of activity. First, there are questions of the kind: Is it ethical to conduct this investigation at all? Second, there are questions such as: How can this investigation be conducted in an ethical way? Consideration of these questions and of the categorization of research based on study design can lead to a model for triage, however the aim of the paper is not so much to make a real practical suggestion but rather the to highlight the distinction between two types of ethical question. It is clear thinking on the relationship between the two types of question that might lead to some practical suggestions and serve to better define the scope of research ethics review.

Randomised evaluation of government health programmes does present a challenge to standard research ethics frameworks

2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-35
Author(s):  
Samuel I Watson ◽  
Mary Dixon-Woods ◽  
Richard J Lilford
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Recent Issue ◽  
Human Welfare ◽  
Research Participants ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Unethical Research ◽  
Health Programmes ◽  
Roll Out

AbstractIn a recent issue of Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), we discussed the ethical review of evaluations of interventions that would occur whether or not the evaluation was taking place. We concluded that standard research ethics frameworks including the Ottawa Statement, which requires justification for all aspects of an intervention and its roll-out, were a poor guide in this area. We proposed that a consideration of researcher responsibility, based on the consequences of the research taking place, would be a more appropriate way delineate the scope of research ethics review. Weijer and Taljaard present a counterargument to our proposal, which we address in this reply. They claim that a focus on researcher responsibility will weaken the protection of research participants and link it to ‘unethical research’ and a ‘government experimenting on its own people’. However, the moral responsibility of researchers is defined in terms of the consequences of the research on human welfare and harm, not in opposition to it. Weijer and Taljaard argue that researchers must justify what they are studying whether or not they have any control over it and that governments must justify their programmes, including by demonstrating equipoise, to a research ethics committee if they implement them in a randomised way. We strongly disagree that this is a defensible way to define the scope of research ethics review and argue that this provides no further protections to research participants beyond what we propose, but places a potential barrier to learning from government programmes.

scholarly journals Bringing Ethics Review Home to Cowichan: Indigenizing Ethics Review in British Columbia, Canada

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cowichan Tribes
Keyword(s):  
British Columbia ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
First Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Preterm Births ◽  
High Rate ◽  
Community Members ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
United Nations Declaration

Cowichan Tribes’ territory, located in the Cowichan Valley on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada, is experiencing an alarmingly high rate of preterm births compared to the national average of Indigenous Peoples in Canada. In response, and in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority (FNHA), Cowichan Tribes is in the first year of a 3-year study to investigate causes. Cowichan Tribes’ Elders and community members are guiding the study to ensure it follows Cowichan Tribes’ research processes and to support self- determination in research. Furthermore, as a way to enhance reconciliation, Elders and community members guided an on-site ethics review on Cowichan Tribes territory. This article outlines the collaborative, in-person research ethics review process that Cowichan Tribes, Island Health, and FNHA completed on August 21, 2019. The purpose of this article is to provide suggestions other First Nations could use when conducting a research ethics review, and to explain how this process aligns with the principles of ownership, control, access, and possession (OCAP®), the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, and above all, the Cowichan snuw’uy’ulh (teachings from Elders).

scholarly journals Implementing a National Approach to Research Ethics Review during a Pandemic – the Irish Experience

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 63
Author(s):  
Aileen Sheehy ◽  
Jennifer Ralph James ◽  
Mary Horgan
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Human Participants ◽  
High Standards ◽  
National Approach

The surge of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) research studies involving human participants in response to the pandemic has meant that research ethics committees across the world have been challenged to adapt their processes to meet demand while retaining high standards of review. Ethics review during this pandemic remains essential to ensure the safety, dignity and well-being of research participants, however research ethics committees are now faced with new, and often complex, ethics considerations and logistical challenges. This Open Letter looks specifically at the Irish experience of establishing a national approach to research ethics review amidst a global pandemic. This represents Ireland’s first National Research Ethics Committee, which provided the research community with an expedited and ‘single national opinion’ for ethics review for COVID-related research. The insights gleaned and lessons learned from the Irish experience may inform emergency responses to future pandemics or public health emergencies.

scholarly journals A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 (7) ◽  
pp. 406-408
Author(s):  
Brigitte Lemyre ◽  
Jaya P Bodani ◽  
Stefani Doucette ◽  
Michael S Dunn ◽  
Deepak Louis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Youth Health ◽  
Administrative Costs ◽  
Ethics Review ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Preterm Born ◽  
Child Health Research

Abstract To be time and resource efficient in neonatal research and to answer clinically relevant questions with validity and generalizability, large numbers of infants from multiple hospitals need to be included. Multijurisdictional research in Canada is currently fraught with research ethics review process hurdles that lead to delays, administrative costs, and possibly termination of projects. We describe our experience applying for ethics review to 13 sites in 7 provinces for a project comparing two standard of care therapies for preterm born infants with respiratory distress syndrome. We welcome the current opportunity created by the Institute of Human Development Child and Youth Health and the Institute for Genetics, to collaboratively identify practical solutions that would benefit Canadian researchers, Research Ethics Boards, and children and families.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document