Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Medical Ethics logoLink to Journal of Medical Ethics
. 1996 Apr;22(2):78–82. doi: 10.1136/jme.22.2.78

Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees.

M E Redshaw 1, A Harris 1, J D Baum 1
PMCID: PMC1376918  PMID: 8731532

Abstract

The same research proposal was submitted to 24 district health authority (DHA) research ethics committees in different parts of the country. The objective was to obtain permission for a multi-centre research project. The study of neonatal care in different types of unit (regional, subregional and district), required that four health authorities were approached in each of six widely separated health regions in England. Data were collected and compared concerning aspects of processing, including application forms, information required, timing and decision-making. The key finding was that ethics committees received and processed the applications variably, reflecting individual factors and local problems. To improve consensus and facilitate multicentre studies, standard forms and instructions are suggested and the establishment of a national committee or advisory group advocated.

Full text

PDF
81

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Berry T. J., Ades T. E., Peckham C. S. Too many ethical committees. BMJ. 1990 Dec 1;301(6763):1274–1274. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6763.1274. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Garfield P. Cross district comparison of applications to research ethics committees. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):660–661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.660. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Gilbert C., Fulford K. W., Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. BMJ. 1989 Dec 9;299(6713):1437–1439. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6713.1437. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Harding T., Ummel M. Evaluating the work of ethical review committees: an observation and a suggestion. J Med Ethics. 1989 Dec;15(4):191–194. doi: 10.1136/jme.15.4.191. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Lock S. Towards a national bioethics committee. BMJ. 1990 May 5;300(6733):1149–1150. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6733.1149. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Meade T. W. The trouble with ethics committees. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1994 Mar-Apr;28(2):102–104. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Middle C., Johnson A., Petty T., Sims L., Macfarlane A. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):659–660. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.659. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Moodie P. C., Marshall T. Guidelines for local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1992 May 16;304(6837):1293–1295. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6837.1293. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Moodie P. The role of local research ethics committees. BMJ. 1992 May 2;304(6835):1129–1130. doi: 10.1136/bmj.304.6835.1129. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Moran J. Local research ethics committees. Report of the 2nd National Conference. J R Coll Physicians Lond. 1992 Oct;26(4):423–431. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Penn Z. J., Steer P. J. Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help? Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995 Jan;102(1):1–2. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1995.tb09015.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. While A. E. Ethics committees: impediments to research or guardians of ethical standards? BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):661–661. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7006.661. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Medical Ethics are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES