Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Centralized and non-centralized ethics review: a five nation study.

Maureen H Fitzgerald1, Paul A Phillips

  • 1School of Occupation and Leisure Studies, The University of Sydney, Faculty of Health Sciences, P.O. Box 170, Lidcombe, NSW 1825, Australia. m.fitzgerald@fhs.usyd.edu.au

Accountability in Research
|June 15, 2006
PubMed
Summary

Centralizing research ethics review processes can streamline operations. Examining administrative and ethics review components suggests centralization can improve efficiency and ethical focus.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The challenge of interdisciplinary collaboration in acute psychiatry: Impacts on the occupational milieu.

Australian occupational therapy journal·2010
Same author

Pacific issues of biodiversity, health and nutrition.

Pacific health dialog·2009
Same author

If Ethics Committees were Designed for Ethnography.

Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE·2009
Same author

A participatory assessment of dietary patterns and food behavior in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

Asia Pacific journal of clinical nutrition·2008
Same author

Carotenoid and vitamin content of Karat and other Micronesian banana cultivars.

International journal of food sciences and nutrition·2006
Same author

Carotenoid content of pandanus fruit cultivars and other foods of the Republic of Kiribati.

Public health nutrition·2006

Area of Science:

  • Research Ethics
  • Health Services Research

Background:

  • Research ethics review is essential but often criticized for being burdensome.
  • Centralized review systems are proposed to address these criticisms.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To explore issues related to the centralization of research ethics review processes.
  • To analyze different models of centralized review across five countries.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative analysis of research ethics review systems in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the USA, and the U.K.
  • Identification of system types: fully centralized, dual, and decentralized/multicommittee.

Main Results:

  • Identified three distinct models of research ethics review systems.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchEmpirical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Highlighted that both administrative and ethics review components are crucial.
  • Found that centralizing the administrative component may alleviate common concerns.

    • Conclusions:

    • Centralization of administrative review can address efficiency issues.
    • Centralizing ethics review may enhance focus on ethical considerations.
    • A nuanced approach considering both components is vital for effective review systems.