Location of Repository

Do research ethics committees identify process errors in applications for ethical approval?

By Emma L. Angell and Mary Dixon-Woods

Abstract

We analysed research ethics committee (REC) letters. We found that RECs frequently identify process errors in applications from researchers that are not deemed “favourable” at first review. Errors include procedural violations (identified in 74% of all applications), missing information (68%), slip-ups (44%) and discrepancies (25%). Important questions arise about why the level of error identified by RECs is so high, and about how errors of different types should be handled

Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group
Year: 2009
DOI identifier: 10.1136/jme.2008.025940
OAI identifier: oai:lra.le.ac.uk:2381/9341
Journal:

Suggested articles

Preview

Citations

  1. (2003). A tale of two studies: research governance issues arising from two ethnographic investigations into the organisation of health and social care. doi
  2. (2008). An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the science/ethics quality boundary examined. Quality & Safety in Health Care, doi
  3. An end to ethics committee control-freakery (Rapid Response).
  4. (1995). Are ethical committees reliable?.
  5. (2003). BTS/MRCMIST steering committee. Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. QJM doi
  6. (2004). Bureaucracy of ethics applications. doi
  7. (2004). Clinical research under the cosh again. doi
  8. (1996). Delays and diversity in the practice of local research ethics committees. doi
  9. (2005). Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. Br Med J doi
  10. (2004). Ethics review in research: Research governance also delays research. Br Med J doi
  11. (2004). Ethnographic content analysis. In: Lewis doi
  12. Is 'inconsistency' in research ethics committee decision-making really a problem? An empirical investigation and reflection. doi
  13. (2004). Research ethics paperwork: what is the plot we seem to have lost?. Br Med J doi
  14. (2006). Research governance: research governance approval is putting people off research. Br Med J doi
  15. (2000). Responses of local research ethics committees to a study with approval from a multicentre research ethics committee. Br Med J doi
  16. (2000). The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. Br Med J doi
  17. (2004). The other face of research governance. doi
  18. (2007). Written work: the social functions of Research Ethics Committee letters. Soc Sci Med doi

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.