Levitas A, Taylor E, Navelle P L, Humphreys E, Sheringham J
London Borough of Islington, United Kingdom.
Cornwall Council, National Institute of Health and Care Research Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN), United Kingdom.
Public Health Pract (Oxf). 2025 Feb 10;9:100587. doi: 10.1016/j.puhip.2025.100587. eCollection 2025 Jun.
Local authorities (LAs) are increasingly aiming to become more research active. Research ethics review is an important prerequisite of high-quality research. It is not clear what a LA ethics review process can (or should) look like, or whether it is needed in addition to external review processes. We aim to describe the scope and purpose of research ethics processes in LAs across England, and factors that are salient to their design.
Qualitative interview study.
Staff from 15 LAs in England were recruited to describe their research ethics process using purposeful and snowball sampling. One-hour interviews were conducted using a topic guide with five scenarios, drawn from LA projects. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using a consensus building process among the research team.
Factors salient to the design of research ethics processes in LAs included: definitions of research, research ownership, and the distinct relationship LAs have with research participants. A typology with four models is used to describe existing processes. These models are: (where LAs assure an external ethics committee has reviewed projects); (where there is no formal review, but ethical considerations are made through formal and informal advice); and (where LAs establish their own formal internal ethics committees). These typologies emerged from divergent understandings of the role of research in LAs and can reflect varied views of research as an activity "done to a local authority", "done with a local authority" or "owned by a local authority".
Research ethics processes in LAs need to reflect various LA approaches to what constitutes research, who owns the research process, and how a LAs relationship with research participants may vary from other settings. As LAs continue articulating what research means in their setting, they need support and guidance to establish research ethics processes that enable research activity, while simultaneously being sensitive to the level of research readiness and distinct LA need.
地方当局（LAs）越来越希望提高研究活跃度。研究伦理审查是高质量研究的重要前提。目前尚不清楚地方当局的伦理审查流程会是什么样（或应该是什么样），也不清楚除了外部审查流程之外是否还需要地方当局的审查流程。我们旨在描述英格兰各地地方当局研究伦理流程的范围和目的，以及对其设计有重要意义的因素。
定性访谈研究。
通过立意抽样和滚雪球抽样，招募了英格兰15个地方当局的工作人员，让他们描述各自的研究伦理流程。使用包含从地方当局项目中选取的五个情景的主题指南进行了一小时的访谈。访谈记录由研究团队通过建立共识的过程进行主题分析。
对地方当局研究伦理流程设计有重要意义的因素包括：研究的定义、研究所有权，以及地方当局与研究参与者的独特关系。使用一种包含四种模式的类型学来描述现有流程。这些模式是：（地方当局确保外部伦理委员会已对项目进行审查）；（没有正式审查，但通过正式和非正式建议进行伦理考量）；以及（地方当局设立自己的正式内部伦理委员会）。这些类型学源于对研究在地方当局中作用的不同理解，并且可以反映出将研究视为“对地方当局进行的活动”、“与地方当局一起进行的活动”或“由地方当局拥有的活动”的不同观点。
地方当局的研究伦理流程需要反映地方当局对研究构成、谁拥有研究过程以及地方当局与研究参与者的关系如何可能与其他环境不同的各种方法。随着地方当局继续阐明研究在其环境中的含义，他们需要支持和指导来建立能够促进研究活动的研究伦理流程，同时对研究准备水平和地方当局的独特需求保持敏感。
