Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Competing interests None.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Linked Articles
- The concise argument
Other content recommended for you
- Should research ethics committees meet in public?
- Partnership as an ethical model for medical research in developing countries: the example of the “implementation trial”
- How are adults with capacity-affecting conditions and associated communication difficulties included in ethically sound research? A documentary-based survey of ethical review and recruitment processes under the research provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) for England and Wales
- Inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and or communication in research: triangulation from a mixed-methods study of current practice and values across multiple stakeholders
- Research ethics committees in Europe: implementing the directive, respecting diversity
- Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK
- Research involving adults who lack capacity: how have research ethics committees interpreted the requirements?
- Brain injury and deprivation of liberty on neurosciences wards: ‘a gilded cage is still a cage’
- When and how to treat patients who refuse treatment
- An empirical study on the preferred size of the participant information sheet in research