Obstacles to gaining ethical approval for a multi-centre study of family support

Children and Society

Volumn 19, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 237-245

  MacPherson, Kristen ^a,c   Lattin Rawstrone, Rebekah ^a   Senior, Rob ^b   Barnes, Jacqueline ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b ROYAL FREE AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United Kingdom)

^c Institute for the Study of the Americas   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 20744434732     PISSN: 09510605     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/chi.874     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Alberti KGMM. 2000. Multicentre research ethics committees: has the cure been worse than the disease? British Medical Journal 320: 1157-1158.
2. Bull J, McCormick G, Swann C, Mulvihill C. 2004. Ante- and post-natal home-visiting programmes: a review of reviews. Health Development Agency. http://www.hda-online.org.uk/Documents/home_visiting.pdf [10 December 2004].
3. Brindle D. 2005. Opinion: scaling back the paper mountain. The Guardian January 5.
4. COREC website. 2004. http://www.corec.org.uk/ [10 December 2004].
5. Coulter A. 2005. Letters: red tape tangle. The Guardian January 12.
6. Department for Education and Skills. 2004. Every Child Matters: Change for Children. HM Government: London.
7. Flynn S. 2000. The cost of getting approval. British Medical Journal 320: 1183.
8. Hey E, Chalmers I. 2000. Investigating allegations of research misconduct: the vital need for due process. British Medical Journal 321: 1-8.
9. Jamrozik K. 2004. Research ethics paperwork: what is the plot we seem to have lost? British Medical Journal 329: 286-287.
10. Jones J. 1999. Government sets up inquiry into ventilation trial. British Medical Journal 318: 553.
11. Jones A, Bamford B. 2004. The other face of research governance. British Medical Journal 329: 280-281.
12. Kerrison S, McNally N, Pollock A. 2003. United Kingdom research governance strategy. British Medical Journal 327: 553-556.
13. NHS Executive West Midlands Regional Office. 2000. Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust (Griffiths report). NHS Executive: Leeds, www.doh.gov.uk/wmro/northstaffs.htm [19 January 2005].
14. Pahl J. 2004. Ethics review in social care research: option appraisal and guidelines. Consultation document. Department of Health. http://www.dh.gov.uk/Consultations/fs/en [14 January 2005].
15. Peck D, Jones A. 2004. Bureaucratic barriers to research and research training in the NHS. Clinical Psychology 36: 7-10.
16. Redfern M. 2001. The Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry Report. HMSO: London.
17. Stephenson T. 2000. Letters: worst outcome of the Griffiths report would be that research becomes increasingly difficult. British Medical Journal 321: 1345.
18. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. 2000. The new system of review by multicentre research ethics committees: prospective study. British Medical Journal 320: 1179-1182.
19. Wald D. 2004. Bureaucracy of ethics applications. British Medical Journal 329: 282-284.
20. Ward H, Cousens S, Smith-Bathgate B, Leitch M, Everington D, Will R, Smith P. 2004. Obstacles to conducting epidemiological research in the UK general population. British Medical Journal 329: 277-279.
21. Warlow C. 2004. Clinical research under the cosh again. British Medical Journal 329: 241-242.