Suppr超能文献

伦理审查作为多中心持续质量改进项目机构批准的组成部分:研究者的观点。

Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.

机构信息

Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, V6 H 3N1, Canada.

出版信息

BMC Health Serv Res. 2010 Jul 30;10:223. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-223.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system.

METHODS

The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved.

RESULTS

Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval.

CONCLUSIONS

For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review.

摘要

背景

在加拿大进行多中心研究的伦理审批中,研究者必须分别向各个研究伦理委员会(REB)单独申请。原则上,保护人类研究对象至关重要。然而,在实践中,多中心伦理审查的过程可能既耗时又昂贵,需要研究人员和 REB 重复工作。我们利用在加拿大围产期网络(CPN)的伦理审查经验,深入了解加拿大的系统。

方法

我们对 16 个不同的 REB 的申请表格进行了摘要,列出了标准化的项目清单。比较了各个站点的申请流程。记录了 REB 与研究者之间的往来信函,以便构建一个批准时间表,确定每个委员会提出的具体问题,并描述如何解决这些问题。

结果

每个 REB 都有不同的申请表格。大多数(n = 9)有两到三个步骤的申请流程。总体而言,从 REB 首次回复的中位数时间为 31 天(范围为 2-174 天)。批准的中位数时间为 42 天(范围为 4-443 天)。隐私和同意是提出的两个主要问题。还提出了几个其他次要或行政问题,导致批准延迟。

结论

对于 CPN,加拿大 REB 的伦理审查过程证明具有挑战性。REB 独立运作,没有统一的申请表格或提交程序。我们呼吁对加拿大的伦理、隐私和机构审查流程进行批判性审查,以确定进行多中心审查的最佳方式。

相似文献

2
Research ethics board approval for an international thromboprophylaxis trial.
J Crit Care. 2012 Jun;27(3):225-31. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2011.12.012. Epub 2012 Feb 4.
4
Evaluation of clinical innovation: a gray zone in the ethics of modern clinical practice?
J Gen Intern Med. 2008 Jan;23 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):27-31. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0410-2.
6
Canadian policy on reporting breaches of research integrity: When should Research Ethics Boards be informed?
Account Res. 2019 Oct;26(7):460-471. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2019.1661243. Epub 2019 Aug 30.
7
Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Apr;34(4):308-14. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.020032.
10
Epistemic Strategies in Ethical Review: REB Members' Experiences of Assessing Probable Impacts of Research for Human Subjects.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2020 Dec;15(5):383-395. doi: 10.1177/1556264619872369. Epub 2019 Sep 15.

引用本文的文献

4
A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies.
Paediatr Child Health. 2019 Dec 19;25(7):406-408. doi: 10.1093/pch/pxz160. eCollection 2020 Nov.
5
Exploring the challenges of ethical conduct in quality improvement projects.
Can Oncol Nurs J. 2020 Jan 1;30(1):64-68. eCollection 2020 Winter.
6
How to get ethics committee approval for clinical trials in Turkey?
North Clin Istanb. 2018 Dec 11;5(4):379-386. doi: 10.14744/nci.2018.68815. eCollection 2018.
7
Ethics review of pediatric multi-center drug trials.
Paediatr Drugs. 2015 Feb;17(1):23-30. doi: 10.1007/s40272-014-0098-9.
10
Procedure versus process: ethical paradigms and the conduct of qualitative research.
BMC Med Ethics. 2012 Sep 27;13:25. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-13-25.

本文引用的文献

1
Perspectives of Canadian researchers on ethics review of neuroimaging research.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2010 Mar;5(1):49-66. doi: 10.1525/jer.2010.5.1.49.
3
U. S. Health Researchers Review their Ethics Review Boards: A Qualitative Study.
J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2006 Jun;1(2):39-58. doi: 10.1525/jer.2006.1.2.39.
4
Research ethics review: do it once and do it well.
CMAJ. 2009 Mar 17;180(6):597-8. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.090172.
5
Clinical trials: the muddled Canadian landscape.
CMAJ. 2009 Jan 6;180(1):20-2. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081897.
7
Ethics review of research: in pursuit of proportionality.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Jul;34(7):568-72. doi: 10.1136/jme.2007.022491.
8
Principal investigator views of the IRB system.
Int J Med Sci. 2008 Apr 2;5(2):68-72. doi: 10.7150/ijms.5.68.
9
Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards.
J Med Ethics. 2008 Apr;34(4):308-14. doi: 10.1136/jme.2006.020032.
10
The Ontario cancer research ethics board: a central REB that works.
Curr Oncol. 2008 Jan;15(1):49-52. doi: 10.3747/co.2008.196.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验