Article Text
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
-
Funding A Wellcome Trust grant (088360) to NS funded (1) drafting Care after research and executing the consultation process; (2) the sixth consultation session; (3) a systematic review (written with Daniel Strech) and ethics research that informed various sections of the framework document; and (4) writing this Editorial. A Brocher Foundation grant to NS and PL funded the seventh consultation session. Two grants from Centre of European Law, King's College London to NS for research assistance informed the briefing in the framework document on guidelines, legislation and position statements. Part of this work was undertaken by NS as a Caroline Miles Visiting Scholar at the Ethox Centre, University of Oxford. HD was Research Ethics Advisor to the National Research Ethics Service during the development of Care after research and the writing of this Editorial.
-
Contributors NS wrote and revised the drafts of this paper. PL and HD commented on the paper. All authors approved the final version.
-
Competing interests None.
-
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
-
↵i There is a dearth of information on types, rates and mechanisms of care after research in the UK. However, limited UK information suggests that some REC-approved documents for recruiting participants lack appropriate plans, some participants expect but lack PTA to the study intervention, and some NHS Trusts have been forced to fund post-trial access to the study intervention (sources include examples of anonymised protocol and informed consent extracts from applications submitted to a North London REC and verbal reports made by many REC members and chairs involved in the consultation process). Wide variations in rates of reporting plans for post-trial access to the study intervention have been reported in informed consent forms and protocols for US-sponsored antiretroviral trials.4 ,5
-
↵ii These together reviewed 5560 applications between 1 April 2011 and 31 March 2012. Source: personal communication between NS and Health Research Authority staff.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Implementing post-trial access plans for HIV prevention research
- Subjects’ views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study
- Challenges with participant reimbursement: experiences from a post-trial access study
- Post-trial access to implantable neural devices: an exploratory international survey
- Problems and development strategies for research ethics committees in China’s higher education institutions
- The ethics of research related to health care in developing countries
- Investigation of post-trial access views among study participants and stakeholders using photovoice and semistructured interviews
- Undue inducement: a case study in CAPRISA 008
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK
- A framework for assessing the ethics of doctors' strikes