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

Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees

M E Redshaw1, A Harris, J D Baum

  • 1Institute of Child Health, University of Bristol.

Journal of Medical Ethics
|April 1, 1996
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

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

Ocular blood flow measurements and their importance in glaucoma and age-related macular degeneration.

The Israel Medical Association journal : IMAJ·2001
Same author

Identification of MUC1 proteolytic cleavage sites in vivo.

Biochemical and biophysical research communications·2001
Same author

Intractable insomnia after cessation of treatment with thalidomide.

Gastroenterology·2001
Same author

Eradication of Helicobacter pylori for non-ulcer dyspepsia.

The Cochrane database of systematic reviews·2001
Same author

[Beyond "successful aging: Rembrandt in his self-portraits].

Psychiatrische Praxis·2001
Same author

Sonographic diagnosis of a pneumothorax inapparent on plain radiography: confirmation by computed tomography.

The Journal of trauma·2001
Same journal

Assisted dying and autonomy as an end in itself: a response to Donaldson.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics briefing.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Medical ethics and categorisation.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suspension or prioritisation? Exploring the ethics of age-based rationing in adult ADHD services.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Ethics of not knowing who we are talking to in qualitative research.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
Same journal

Suicide is not a public health issue and perhaps very few things should be.

Journal of medical ethics·2026
See all related articles

Submitting one research proposal to 24 district health authority (DHA) ethics committees revealed variable processing. Standardizing forms and establishing a national advisory group could improve multicentre research coordination.

Area of Science:

  • Medical Ethics
  • Health Services Research
  • Neonatal Care Research

Background:

  • Multicentre research is crucial for comprehensive health studies.
  • Obtaining ethical approval from multiple District Health Authorities (DHAs) can be complex.
  • Variability in ethics review processes may hinder multicentre research initiation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the variability in processing research proposals by District Health Authority (DHA) research ethics committees.
  • To identify challenges in obtaining ethical approval for a multicentre neonatal care study across England.
  • To propose recommendations for improving the efficiency and consistency of ethics review for multicentre research.

Main Methods:

  • Submitted a single research proposal to 24 DHA research ethics committees across England.
Keywords:
Biomedical and Behavioral ResearchDepartment of Health (Great Britain)Empirical Approach

Related Experiment Videos

  • Collected and compared data on application processing, including forms, information requirements, timelines, and decision-making.
  • Focused on a study investigating neonatal care across regional, subregional, and district units.

    • Main Results:

    • Significant variability was observed in how ethics committees received and processed research applications.
    • Processing times and decision-making criteria differed across DHAs, influenced by local factors.
    • No standardized approach to ethics review was evident, impacting multicentre study feasibility.

    Conclusions:

    • Variability in ethics committee processing poses a barrier to multicentre research.
    • Standardized application forms and clear instructions are recommended to improve consistency.
    • Establishing a national ethics committee or advisory group could facilitate multicentre research coordination.