"Research ethics" from_date:2012

We need to talk about research ethics committees (RECs) Skip to main content Subscribe Log In Basket Search Latest content Current issue Archive Write for Us About EBN BlogYou are hereHome Archive Volume 26, Issue 3Email alertsArticleTextArticleinfoCitationToolsShareRapid ResponsesArticlemetricsAlertsPDFEditorialWe need to talk about research ethics committees (RECs) ParkinsonCorrespondence to Dr price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways. Request permissions Research ethics committees (RECs) (institutional review boards) came to prominence after the Second World War and were introduced to protect research participants and reduce unethical research.1 Over recent years, I have had the privilege of serving with different RECs and have been impressed

Ranking Research Methodology by Risk - a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members. When reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved. The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments' Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified

Research ethics and collaborative research in health and social care: Analysis of UK research ethics policies, scoping review of the literature, and focus group study. Current research ethics frameworks were developed on the footprint of biomedical, experimental research and present several pitfalls when applied to non-experimental social sciences. This work explores how the normative principles underpinning policy and regulatory frameworks of research ethics and the related operational processes work in practice in the context of collaborative health and social care research. The work was organised in three phases. First, UK research ethics policy documents were analysed thematically, with themes further organised under the categories of 'Principles' and 'Processes'. Next, we conducted a scoping

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study. Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during

Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool. There is an increase in human subject research in developing countries and conducting them in an ethical manner depends on the research ethics oversight in these countries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operational, financial, and educational characteristics of research ethics

Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa. Several factors thwart successful data sharing-ambiguous or fragmented regulatory landscapes, conflicting institutional/researcher interests and varying levels of data science-related expertise are among these. Traditional ethics oversight mechanisms and practices may not be well placed

Future-Proofing Research Ethics-Key Revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki 2024. This Viewpoint discusses key revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki 2024 in the context of internationally accepted ethical guidance for human research.

Emerging technologies and research ethics: Developing editorial policy using a scoping review and reference panel. Emerging technologies and societal changes create new ethical concerns and greater need for cross-disciplinary and cross-stakeholder communication on navigating ethics in research. Scholarly articles are the primary mode of communication for researchers, however there are concerns regarding the expression of research ethics in these outputs. If not in these outputs, where should researchers and stakeholders learn about the ethical considerations of research? Drawing on a scoping review, analysis of policy in a specific disciplinary context (learning and technology), and reference group discussion, we address concerns regarding research ethics, in research involving emerging

Going paperless: the strengths and limitations of electronic research ethics information management system in a health training institution in Tanzania. Over the years, the processing of research proposals for ethical approvals have been done manually through a review of hard copies. Longer turn-around-time, increased financial costs to researchers and cumbersome submission processes are few of the challenges inherent to paper-based review of research proposals. This has necessitated the shift to electronic management of research proposals, Research Ethics Information Management Systems (REIMS). Still, the advantages of going paperless and inherent drawbacks remain unsubstantiated, hence the aim of this study. We adopted a pre and post evaluation design using a qualitative approach, where 16 faculty

Reported processes and practices of researchers applying for human research ethics approval for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study. To examine self-reported practices for obtaining ethics approval and reflections on ethics application processes among researchers who have conducted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research. Cross and Torres Strait Islander research. Of 553 eligible researchers who commenced the survey, 439 (79.4%) answered all of the questions and were included in the analysis. A total of 327 participants (74.5%) had obtained ethics approval from an Aboriginal human research ethics committee (AHREC), 254 (57.9%) had obtained multistate ethics approvals and 270 (61.5%) had not participated in ethics training

Human research ethics committee processes and practices for approving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a mixed methods study. To describe human research ethics committee (HREC) members' reports of: HREC membership structures; HREC processes for reviewing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and medical research; and experiences and perceptions of review operations

Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: A case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study. Clinical research with remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) has multiple advantages over standard paper-pencil tests, but also raises several ethical concerns. While several studies have addressed the issue of governance of big data in clinical research from the legal or ethical perspectives, the viewpoint of local research ethics committee (REC) members is underrepresented in the current literature. The aim of this study is therefore to find which specific ethical challenges are raised by RECs in the context of a large European study on remote monitoring in all syndromic stages of Alzheimer's disease, and what gaps remain

Research Ethics of Involving Adolescents in Health Research Studies: Perspectives From Australia. Adolescent participation in health research studies is critical yet complex given the lack of clarity around issues such as consent. This study aimed to understand how those conducting research in Australia navigate research ethics in health research involving adolescents, through qualitative or superior knowledge about adolescent lives, (2) competing positions resulting in a risk averse or an empowerment approach, and (3) reflections on processes of obtaining consent which involves gatekeeping and tokenism. Our study highlights the contentious topic of navigating ethics committee requirements for the needs of adolescents. Majority of participants felt the current research ethics establishment

Improving the Ethics Review of Qualitative Health Research: A Comparison of Review Practices and Suggestions for Improvement by Researchers and Members of Research Ethics Committees. Most qualitative health research is subject to ethics review and approval by a research ethics committee (REC). While many studies have identified the challenges that current ethics review practices pose

Assent in Pediatric Critical Care Research: A Cross-Sectional Stakeholder Survey of Canadian Research Ethics Boards, Research Coordinators, Pediatric Critical Care Researchers, and Nurses. Survey of four stakeholder groups involved in defining and obtaining assent for research in Canadian PICUs to better understand their perspectives and perceived barriers to assent. Cross-sectional survey . Fourteen tertiary-care pediatric hospitals in Canada. Research Ethics Board Chairs, pediatric critical care nurses, research coordinators, and researchers. None. A total of 193 participants responded. Thirty-seven percent (59/159) thought it was "Never/Almost Never" (59/159, 37%) feasible to obtain assent during the first 48 hours of PICU admission, and 112 of 170 (66%) indicated there are unique

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey. It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work

Empowering local research ethics review of antibacterial mass administration research. Recent studies using mass drug administration (MDA) of antibiotics to entire communities have focused global attention on the unique ethical challenges of MDA of antibiotics in research and public health interventions. However, there is no specific guidance for Research Ethics Committees (RECs for "research ethics committees," "institutional review boards," and "ethics." We reviewed citations of search results to retrieve additional articles. Only articles published and indexed in the above databases up to 6 January 2022 in English were included. Abstracts (without full articles), books and articles that had exclusive veterinary and environmental focus were excluded. We synthesized the literature

The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested

Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi. There have been notable investments in large multi-partner research programmes across the agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) nexus. These studies often involve human participants and commonly require research ethics review. These ANH studies are complex . This study explores the application of a novel 'real-time research ethics approach' (RTREA) and how this can support ethical mindfulness. This involves embedding ethical analysis and decision-making within research implementation, with a continuous dialogue between participants and researchers. The aim is to improve ethical responsiveness and participant experience, which in turn may ethically support