Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: Comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands

Background: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Methods: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. Results: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. Conclusions: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales

Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: Comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands

Background: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Methods: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. Results: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. Conclusions: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales

First meeting in Asia of the Asia pacific research integrity network

In 2017, the University of Hong Kong and the University of California San Diego co-hosted the first Asian meeting of the recently formed Asia Pacific Research Integrity (APRI) network in Hong Kong. Aligned with planning meetings in 2015 and 2016 funded in part by the US Office of Research Integrity (ORI), the Hong Kong meeting was designed by a multi-national planning committee to address pressing challenges in research integrity: improving multi-national communication; exchanging information on managing misconduct investigations; and sharing best practices to promote research integrity. To create a sustainable, robust international partnership to promote research integrity in the region, the purpose of this 2017 meeting was to foster multi-national awareness, understanding, and opportunities for collaboration. The meeting was defined by four objectives that emerged from the previous meetings: (1) Articulate differences as well as areas of common ground; (2) Identify best or recommended practices; (3) Identify opportunities for research or collaboration; and (4) Set an APRI network agenda for coming years. The key anticipated outcome was to advance the conversation surrounding research integrity among academic institutions and regulators in Asian and Pacific Rim nations. This outcome was evidenced by meeting participation, participant satisfaction, and articulation of next steps for the APRI network

Partnering to Harmonize IRBs for Community-Engaged Research to Reduce Health Disparities

Abstract available at publisher's web site.http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_care_for_the_poor_and_underserved/v022/22.4A.hammatt.htm

Partnering to Harmonize IRBs for Community-Engaged Research to Reduce Health Disparities

Abstract available at publisher's web site.http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_health_care_for_the_poor_and_underserved/v022/22.4A.hammatt.htm

Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity

CITATION: O’Brien, S. P., et al. 2016. Proceedings of the 4th World Conference on Research Integrity. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1:9, doi:10.1186/s41073-016-0012-9.The original publication is available at https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.comThese Proceedings contain the abstracts of the presentations given at the 4th World Conference in concurrent sessions, partner symposia, and poster sessions. Also included are summaries of the discussions in three focus tracks, which allowed delegates to consider and work on questions about the roles of funders, institutions, and countries in improving research systems and strengthening research integrity. Videos of the plenary presentations are available at the conference website (www.wcri2015.org).https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0012-