Continuing ethics review practices by Canadian research ethics boards

IRB Ethics and Human Research

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 10-14

  Norton, Karleen ^a   Wilson, Donna M ^b  

^a Quality Assurance and Regulatory Affairs   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CANADA; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW; UTILIZATION REVIEW;

CANADA; ETHICS COMMITTEES; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; QUESTIONNAIRES;

EID: 50249150241     PISSN: 01937758     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (50)

1. Rusnak E. Safeguarding human subjects of medical research: Control by committee. Research Nurse 1996;2(3):1-18.
2. DeMarinis A. Issues in research management. Qualifying an IRB: A guide for making compliance assessments. Research Practitioner 2002;3(3):97-101.
3. Chop R, Silva M. Scientific fraud: Definitions, policies, and implications for nursing research. Journal of Professional Nursing 1991;7(3):166-171;
4. Hansen B, Hansen K. Academic and scientific misconduct: Issues for nursing educators. Journal of Professional Nursing 1995;11(1):31-39;
5. Hawley D, Jeffers J. Scientific misconduct as a dilemma for nursing. Journal of Nursing Scholarship 1991;24(1):51-55;
6. Fiddle B, Brazelton E. Psychology faculty satisfaction and compliance with IRB procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1996;18(6)54-6;
7. Riis P. Misconduct in clinical research: The Scandinavian experience and actions for prevention. Acta Oncologica 1999;38(1):89-92.
8. Meinert C. Masked monitoring in clinical trials: Blind stupidity? NEJM 1999(a):1381-1381.
9. Bevan J. Towards the regulation of research ethics boards. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society 2002;49:900-906;
10. Medical Research Council, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS) (Ottawa, Canada: Public Works and Government Services Canada, 1998 [updated 2000, 2002, and 2005]), http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/ policy-statement.cfm;
11. Lavery J, Van Laethern M, Slutsky A. Monitoring and oversight in critical care research. Critical Care (London) 2004;8(6):403-405;
12. Meinert C. Clinical trials and treatment effects monitoring. Controlled Clinical Trials 1998(b);19(6):515-522;
13. Morse M, Califf R, Sugarman J. Monitoring and ensuring safety during clinical research. JAMA 2001;285(9):1201-1205;
14. O'Mathuna DP. On-site visits in monitoring research practice. Research Practioner 2004;5(6):201-208;
15. Weijer C. Continuing review of clinical research Canadian-style. Clinical Investigative Medicine 2002;25(3):92-93.
16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Protection of Human Subjects. 45 CFR 46.
17. Department of Health and Aging. The Australian Clinical Trial Handbook. Australian government, 1006. http//:www.tga.gov.au/ct/cthandbook. pdf.
18. National Health Service. Governance arrangements for NHS Research Ethics Committees in Scotland. 1001. http//:www.nres.npsa.nhs.uk/docs/ guidance/GAfREC_Scotland.pdf.
19. See Article 1.13, Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans (TCPS).
20. Lind S. The Institutional Review Board: An evolving ethics committee. The Journal of Clinical Ethics 1991;3:278-282;
21. Shaul RZ. Reviewing the reviewers: The vague accountability of research ethics committees. Critical Care 2002;6:121-121.
22. Ankara B. Evaluation of research ethics committees in Turkey. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:459-461;
23. Berna A. Evaluation of research ethics committees in Turkey. Journal of Medical Ethics 2000;26:459-461;
24. Bravo G, Bubois MF, Paquet M. The conduct of Canadian researchers and institutional review boards regarding substituted consent for research. IRB: Ethics & Human Research 2004;26(1):1-7;
25. Ceci S, Douglas P, Plotkin J. Human subjects review, personal values, and the regulation of social science research. In A. Kazdin, ed. Methodological Issues and Strategies in Clinical Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1992, p. 687-704;
26. Dal-Re R. Performances of research ethics committees in Spain. A prospective study of 100 applications for clinical trial protocols on medicines. Journal of Medical Ethics 1999;25:268-2735
27. Godfrey E, Wray E, Nicholson R. Another look at LREC annual reports. Bulletin of Medical Ethics 2002;171:13-21;
28. Grondin M, Zaharoff B, Kaminow P. A 12-year audit of IRB decisions. Quality Review Bulletin 2001;12(3):82-86;
29. Hayes G, Hayes S, Dykstra T. A survey of university institutional review boards: Characteristics, policies, and procedures. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1995;17(3):1-6;
30. McNeill P, Berglund C, Webster I. Reviewing the reviewers: A survey of institutional ethics committees in Australia. The Medical Journal of Australia 1990;152:289-295;
31. Olsen DP, Mahrenholz D. IRB-identified ethical issues in nursing research . . . institutional review board. Journal of Professional Nursing 2000;16(3):140-148;
32. National Council on Bioethics in Human Research. Protecting and promoting the human research subject: A review of the function of research ethics boards in Canadian faculties of medicine. NCBHR Communique 1995;6(1):3-30;
33. Pich J, Carne X, Arnaiz JA, Gomez B, Trilla A, Rodes J. Role of a research ethics committee in follow-up and publication results. Lancet 2003;361:1015-1016;
34. Saito T. Ethics committees in Japanese medical schools. HEC Forum 1992;4(4):281-187;
35. Thompson I, French K, Melia K, Boyd K, Templeton A, Potter B. Research ethical committees in Scotland. British Medical Journal 1981;282:718-720.
36. See ref. 11, Thompson et al. 1981; McNeill et al. 1990; NCBHR 1995.
37. See ref. 11, Thompson et al. 1981.
38. See ref. 11, McNeill et al. 1990.
39. See ref. 11, NCBHR 1995.
40. Bortolussi R, Nicholson D. Auditing of clinical research ethics in a children's and women's academic hospital. Clinical Investigative Medicine 2002;25(3):83-88.
41. McCusker J, Kruszewski Z, Lacey B, Schiff B. Monitoring clinical research: Report of one hospital's experience. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2001;164(9):1321-1329;
42. Skrutkowski M, Weijer C, Shapiro S, Fuks A, Langleben A, Freedman B. Monitoring informed consent in an oncology study posing serious risks to subjects. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1998;20(6):1-5.
43. Banister E. Considerations for research ethics boards in evaluating qualitative studies: Lessons learned from an ethnographic study with adolescent females. Annals of the Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Canada 2002;35:567-570;
44. Goodwin D, Pope C, Mort M, Smith A. Ethics and ethnography: An experimental account. Qualitative Health Research 2003;13(3)5567-577;
45. Grinyer A. Ethical dilemmas in non-clinical health research from a UK perspective. Nursing Ethics 2001;8(2):123-132;
46. Holloway I, Wheeler S. Ethical issues in qualitative nursing research. Nursing Ethics 1995;2(3):223-232;
47. Oberle KM. Ethics in qualitative health research. Annals of the Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada 2002;35(8):563-566;
48. Pattullo EL. Who risks what in social research? Hastings Center Report 1980;10(2):15-19;
49. Peled E, Leichtentritt R. The ethics of qualitative social work research. Qualitative Social Work 2002;1(2)5145-169;
50. Sieber J, Baluyot R. A survey of IRB concerns about social and behavioral research. IRB: A Review of Human Subjects Research 1992;14(2):9-10.