An analysis of decision letters by research ethics committees: the ethics/scientific quality boundary examined

被引:37
作者
Angell, E. L. [1 ]
Bryman, A. [2 ]
Ashcroft, R. E. [3 ]
Dixon-Woods, M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Leicester, Dept Hlth Sci, Social Sci Res Grp, Leicester LE1 7RH, Leics, England
[2] Univ Leicester, Sch Management, Leicester, Leics, England
[3] Univ London, Sch Law, London, England
来源
QUALITY & SAFETY IN HEALTH CARE | 2008年 / 17卷 / 02期
关键词
D O I
10.1136/qshc.2007.022756
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives: The performance of NHS research ethics committees (RECs) is of growing interest. It has been proposed that they confine themselves to "ethical'' issues only and not concern themselves with the quality of the science. This study aimed to identify current practices of RECs in relation to scientific issues in research ethics applications. Methods: Letters written by UK RECs expressing provisional or unfavourable opinions in response to submitted research applications were sampled from the research ethics database held by the Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Ethnographic content analysis (ECA) was used to develop a coding framework. QSR N6 software was used to facilitate coding. Results: "Scientific issues'' were raised in 104 (74%) of the 141 letters in our sample. The present data suggest that RECs frequently considered scientific issues and that judgments of these often informed their decisions about approval of applications. Current processes of peer review seemed insufficient to reassure RECs about the scientific quality of applications they were asked to review. Conclusions: This study provides evidence that scientific issues are frequently raised in letters to researchers and are often considered a quality problem by RECs. In the discussion, the authors reflect on how far issues of science can and should be distinguished from those of ethics and the policy implications.
引用
收藏
页码:131 / 136
页数:6
相关论文
共 16 条
[1]  
Altheide D.L., 1996, Qualitative media analysis
[2]  
Altheide D. L., 2004, SAGE ENCY SOCIAL SCI, P325
[3]  
Angell E.L., 2007, CLIN ETHICS, V2, P92, DOI [DOI 10.1258/147775007781029500, 10.1258/147775007781029500]
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2006, TESTING TREATMENTS B
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2006, PERSONAL DATA PUBLIC
[6]  
*CTR OFF RES ETH C, 2001, GOVT ARR RES ETH COM
[7]   Contesting the science/ethics distinction in the review of clinical research [J].
Dawson, Angus J. ;
Yentis, Steve M. .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ETHICS, 2007, 33 (03) :165-167
[8]  
*DEP HLTH, 2001, RES GOVT FRAM HLTH S
[9]  
*DEP HTLH, 2005, REP AD HOC ADV GROUP
[10]  
Diener E., 1978, Ethics in social and behavioral research