Why should ethics approval be required prior to publication of health promotion research?

Issue Addressed: Most academic journals that publish studies involving human participants require evidence that the research has been approved by a human research ethics committee (HREC). Yet journals continue to receive submissions from authors who have failed to obtain such approval. In this paper, we provide an ethical justification of why journals should not, in general, publish articles with no ethics approval, with particular attention to the health promotion context. Methods: Using theoretical bioethical reasoning and drawing on a case study; we first rebut some potential criticisms of the need for research ethics approval. We then outline four positive claims to justify a presumption that research should, in most instances, be published only if it has been undertaken with HREC approval. Results: We present four justifications for requiring ethics approval prior to publication: (i) that HREC approval adds legitimacy to the research; (ii) that the process of obtaining HREC approval can improve the quality of an intervention being investigated; (iii) that obtaining HREC approval can help mitigate harm; and (iv) that obtaining HREC approval demonstrates respect for persons. Conclusion: This paper provides a systematic and comprehensive assessment of why research ethics approval should generally be obtained prior to publishing in the health promotion context. So what? Journals such as the HPJA have recently begun to require research ethics approval for publishing research. Health promotion researchers will be interested in learning the ethical justification for this change. Keywords Publication ethics, research, health promotion, ethics approva

Quitting patient care and career break intentions among general practitioners in South West England: findings of a census survey of general practitioners

Objective: Given recent concerns regarding general practitioner (GP) workforce capacity, we aimed to describe GPs’ career intentions, especially those which might impact on GP workforce availability over the next 5 years. Design: Census survey, conducted between April and June 2016 using postal and online responses , of all GPs on the National Health Service performers list and eligible to practise in primary care. Two reminders were used as necessary. Setting: South West England (population 3.5  million), a region with low overall socioeconomic deprivation. Participants: Eligible GPs were 2248 out of 3370 (67 % response rate). Main outcome measures: Reported likelihood of permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care or of taking a career break within the next 5 years and present morale weighted for non-response. Results: Responders included 217 7 GPs engaged in patient care. Of these, 863 (37% weighted, 95%  CI 35 % to 39 %) reported a high likelihood of quitting direct patient care within the next 5 years. Overall, 1535 (70% weighted, 95%  CI 68 % to 72 %) respondents reported a career intention that would negatively impact GP workforce capacity over the next 5 years, through permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care, or through taking a career break. GP age was an important predictor of career intentions; sharp increases in the proportion of GPs intending to quit patient care were evident from 52 years. Only 305 (14% weighted, 95%  CI 13 % to 16 %) reported high morale, while 1195 ( 54 % weighted, 95%  CI 52 % to 56 %) reported low morale. Low morale was particularly common among GP partners. Current morale strongly predicted GPs’ career intentions; those with very low morale were particularly likely to report intentions to quit patient care or to take a career break. Conclusions: A substantial majority of GPs in South West England report low morale. Many are considering career intentions which, if implemented, would adversely impact GP workforce capacity within a short time period. Study registration: NIHR HS&DR - 14/196/02, UKCRN ID 20700

Design considerations in a clinical trial of a cognitive behavioural intervention for the management of low back pain in primary care : Back Skills Training Trial

Background Low back pain (LBP) is a major public health problem. Risk factors for the development and persistence of LBP include physical and psychological factors. However, most research activity has focused on physical solutions including manipulation, exercise training and activity promotion. Methods/Design This randomised controlled trial will establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a group programme, based on cognitive behavioural principles, for the management of sub-acute and chronic LBP in primary care. Our primary outcomes are disease specific measures of pain and function. Secondary outcomes include back beliefs, generic health related quality of life and resource use. All outcomes are measured over 12 months. Participants randomised to the intervention arm are invited to attend up to six weekly sessions each of 90 minutes; each group has 6–8 participants. A parallel qualitative study will aid the evaluation of the intervention. Discussion In this paper we describe the rationale and design of a randomised evaluation of a group based cognitive behavioural intervention for low back pain

ReseArch with Patient and Public invOlvement: a RealisT evaluation - the RAPPORT study

Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a prerequisite for many funding bodies and NHS research ethics approval. PPI in research is defined as research carried out with or by the public rather than to, about or for them. While the benefits of PPI have been widely discussed, there is a lack of evidence on the impact and outcomes of PPI in research. Objectives To determine the types of PPI in funded research, describe key processes, analyse the contextual and temporal dynamics of PPI and explore the experience of PPI in research for all those involved. Mechanisms contributing to the routine incorporation of PPI in the research process were assessed, the impact of PPI on research processes and outcomes evaluated, and barriers and enablers to effective PPI identified. Design A three-staged realist evaluation drawing on Normalisation Process Theory to understand how far PPI was embedded within health-care research in six areas: diabetes mellitus, arthritis, cystic fibrosis, dementia, public health and learning disabilities. The first two stages comprised a scoping exercise and online survey to chief investigators to assess current PPI activity. The third stage consisted of case studies tracked over 18 months through interviews and document analysis. The research was conducted in four regions of England. Participants Non-commercial studies currently running or completed within the previous 2 years eligible for adoption on the UK Clinical Research Network portfolio. A total of 129 case study participants included researchers and PPI representatives from 22 research studies, and representatives from funding bodies and PPI networks

The challenges faced in the design, conduct and analysis of surgical randomised controlled trials

Randomised evaluations of surgical interventions are rare; some interventions have been widely adopted without rigorous evaluation. Unlike other medical areas, the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design has not become the default study design for the evaluation of surgical interventions. Surgical trials are difficult to successfully undertake and pose particular practical and methodological challenges. However, RCTs have played a role in the assessment of surgical innovations and there is scope and need for greater use. This article will consider the design, conduct and analysis of an RCT of a surgical intervention. The issues will be reviewed under three headings: the timing of the evaluation, defining the research question and trial design issues. Recommendations on the conduct of future surgical RCTs are made. Collaboration between research and surgical communities is needed to address the distinct issues raised by the assessmentof surgical interventions and enable the conduct of appropriate and well-designed trials.The Health Services Research Unit is funded by the Scottish Government Health DirectoratesPeer reviewedPublisher PD

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Trust and regulatory organisations: The role of local knowledge and facework in research ethics review

While trust is seen as central to most social relations, most writers, including sociologists of science, assume that modern trust relations – especially those in regulatory relationships – tend towards the impersonal. Drawing on ethnographic material from one kind of scientific oversight body – research ethics committees based in the UK NHS – this paper argues that interpersonal trust is crucial to regulatory decision-making and intimately bound up with the way in which these oversight bodies work, and that as such they build on, rather than challenge, the trust-based nature of the scientific community