Methodological Considerations in Ethical Review — 3.: Sampling and Data Analysis

2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 121-124
Author(s):  
Mp Tully ◽  
A Vail ◽  
S Roberts ◽  
L Brabin ◽  
R McNamee
Keyword(s):  
Data Analysis ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
Research Ethics Review ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
Study Participants

This is the third of four papers to be published in Research Ethics Review in 2009, that address methodological issues of relevance to research ethics committees. It focuses on three issues: the representativeness of study participants, the size of the study and data analysis. Differences between best practices in qualitative and quantitative research are highlighted. The paper argues that, while lack of representativeness may not be unethical, the ethical implications of unnecessary restrictions on eligibility should be considered by committees. Studies that are either too small or too big can pose problems. Research teams need to have the necessary competence to enable an appropriate analysis focused on the main objectives and interpreted in the context of the limitations of the study design.

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.

Human research ethics committees members: ethical review personal perceptions

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boris Handal ◽  
Chris Campbell ◽  
Kevin Watson ◽  
Marguerite Maher ◽  
Keagan Brewer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Human Research ◽  
Human Research Ethics ◽  
Personal Perceptions

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 Justice: a key consideration in health policy and systems research ethics

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. e001942 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridget Pratt ◽  
Verina Wild ◽  
Edwine Barasa ◽  
Dorcas Kamuya ◽  
Lucy Gilson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Policy ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Systems Research ◽  
The Social ◽  
Principle Of Justice ◽  
The Rich ◽  
Health Policy And Systems

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is increasingly being funded and conducted worldwide. There are currently no specific guidelines or criteria for the ethical review and conduct of HPSR. Academic debates on HPSR ethics in the scholarly literature can inform the development of guidelines. Yet there is a deficiency of academic bioethics work relating to justice in HPSR. This gap is especially problematic for a field like HPSR, which can entail studies that intervene in ways affecting the social and health system delivery structures of society. In this paper, we call for interpreting the principle of justice in a more expansive way in developing and reviewing HPSR studies (relative to biomedical research). The principle requires advancing health equity and social justice at population or systems levels. Drawing on the rich justice literature from political philosophy and public health ethics, we propose a set of essential justice considerations to uphold this principle. These considerations are relevant for research funders, researchers, research ethics committees, policymakers, community organisations and others who are active in the HPSR field.

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.

The Recruitment and Retention of Members of Black and other Ethnic Minority Groups to NHS Research Ethics Committees in the United Kingdom

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Babatunde A. Gbolade
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Ethnic Minority ◽  
Research Ethics ◽  
Minority Groups ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethnic Minority Groups ◽  
Recruitment And Retention ◽  
Ethical Implications ◽  
The United Kingdom

The publication ‘Governance arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees’ is clear in its recommendations about the composition of National Health Service research ethics committees in the United Kingdom. It highlights the need for a sufficiently broad range of experience and expertise, balanced age and gender distribution and every effort to be made to recruit members from black and ethnic minority backgrounds, as well as people with disabilities. It was considered that this composition would make it possible for the scientific, clinical and methodological aspects of a research proposal to be reconciled with the welfare of research participants, and with broader ethical implications. Black and other ethnic minorities constitute 7.9 per cent of the UK population. Ideally, in any research ethics committee with a maximum of 18 members, at least one would be a member of the black or other ethnic minority groups. However, this does not appear to be the case; some committees having more than one, while most do not have any. This paper looks at the present position and suggests ways of improving recruitment and retention of members of these groups.

scholarly journals Participatory Research and the Medicalization of Research Ethics Processes

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 378-400 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tehseen Noorani ◽  
Andrew Charlesworth ◽  
Alison Kite ◽  
Morag McDermont
Keyword(s):  
Research Ethics ◽  
Participatory Research ◽  
Mental Distress ◽  
Ethical Decision Making ◽  
Ethics Committees ◽  
Ethical Review ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Research Ethics Committees ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Methodological Innovation

This article illustrates how medicalized epistemologies and methodologies significantly influence the institutional ethical review processes applied to sociolegal research in law schools. It argues this development has elevated particular renderings of mental distress and objectivity to universal definitions, potentially placing a straitjacket on methodological innovation. The authors use two case studies from their experiences as researchers in a UK Law School, alongside a small-scale survey of sociolegal researchers in other UK law schools, to illustrate the problems that can arise in securing ethical approval for sociolegal research, in particular with participatory research designs that mobilize ideas of mental distress and objectivity not premised on conventional medical understandings. The article develops key proposals that the authors feel merit further inquiry. First, there should be a comprehensive evaluation of how the jurisdiction of ethical review for sociolegal research is established. Second, sociolegal scholarship can contribute to debates concerning the discursive, material and procedural constitution of institutional ethics approval processes. Finally, we might rethink the nature of, and relationship between, university-based research ethics committees and National Health Service research ethics committees, by placing both within wider ecologies of capacities for ethical decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document