Table 3.
Tasks and items in clinical research projects covered by research ethics committees (RECs), Finland compared to England, Canada (Ontario), and the USA, around 2010
| Finland | England | Canada | USA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patient protection | Starting point | Starting point | Starting point | Starting point |
| Research advancement | No | Yes | Yes | Yesb |
| Research prioritization | No | No | No | No |
| Resourcea competition | No | No | No | No |
| Follow-up | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Contract | No | No, another body | No, another body | No, another body |
| Items | ||||
| Scientific quality | Yes | Evidence asked for | Yes/ no | Yes/Evidence asked for |
| Availability of results | No | Yes | Yes | Yesb |
| Research registration | No | Yes | Yes (trials) | Yes (trials) |
| Institutional liability | No | No | Important | Important |
| Following (legal) rules | Important | Not major issue | Unknown | Unknown |
| Conflicts of interest | No | Yes | No, another body | No, another body |
aPatients, doctors and other resources for research.
bUnsure.