Reflections on applying for NHS ethical approval and governance in a climate of rapid change: Prioritising process over principles

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Volumn 12, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 227-241

  McDonach, Eileen ^a   Barbour, Rosaline S ^a   Williams, Brian ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449657453     PISSN: 13645579     EISSN: 14645300     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13645570701606127     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Alberti, K.G. (2000). Multicentre research ethics committees: Has the cure been worse than the disease? But idiosyncrasies and obstructions to good research must be removed. British Medical Journal, 320, 1157-1158.
2. Barbour, R.S. (2000). The role of qualitative research in broadening the 'evidence base' for clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation and Clinical Practice, 6(2), 155-163.
3. Blunt, J., Savulescu, J., & Watson, A.J.M. (1998). Meeting the challenges of facing research ethics committees: Some practical suggestions. British Medical Journal, 316, 58-61.
4. Cartwright, A., & Seale, C. (1990). The natural history of a survey: an account of the methodological issues encountered in a study of life before death. London, King Edward's Hospital Fund for London.
5. Cave, E., & Holm, S. (2002). New governance arrangements for research committees: Is facilitating research achieved at the cost of participants' interest. Journal of Medical Ethics, 28, 318-321.
6. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) (2005). Standard operating procedures for research ethics committees: Version 3. London: COREC: 208.
7. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) (2004a). New operational procedures for NHS RECs. London: COREC: 6.
8. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees (COREC) (2004b). Standard operating procedures for research ethics committees: Version 2, London: COREC: 176.
9. Department of Health (1991). Local research ethics committees. London (HSG91 5): Department of Health.
10. Department of Health (2000). Report of a review of the research framework in North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust.
11. Department of Health (2001a). Research governance framework for health and social care. London: Department of Health: 41.
12. Department of Health (2001b). Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London: NHS: 34.
13. Department of Health (2005a, April 2005). Research governance framework for health and social care (2nd ed.). London: Department of Health: 50.
14. Department of Health (2005b). Report of the ad hoc advisory group on the operation of NHS research ethics committees: 26.
15. Dolan, B. (1999). The impact of local research committees on the development of nursing knowledge. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 30, 1009-1010.
16. Greenhalgh, T. (2004). The new ethics. British Medical Journal, 328, 651.
17. Hearnshaw, H. (2004). Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study. British Medical Journal, 328, 140-141.
18. HMSO (1998). Data Protection Act 1998.
19. HMSO (2004). The medicines for human use (Clinical Trials) regulations 2004.
20. Homan, R. (1991). The ethics of social research. London: Longman.
21. Lux, A., Edwards, S.W., & Osborne, J.P. (2000). Responses of local research committees to a study with approval from a multi-centre research ethics committee. British Medical Journal, 320, 1182-1183.
22. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative researching. London: Sage.
23. National Task Force for Research & Development (1994). Supporting research and development in the NHS, a report to the Minister of Health by a Research and Development Task Force chaired by A.J. Culyer. London: HMSO.
24. Norman, J. (2004). New system of ethics approval is unacceptable. British Medical Journal, 328, 651.
25. Normand, C., Meyer, J., & Bentley, J. (2003). Research ethics and complex studies. NT Research, 8(1), 17-26.
26. Royal Liverpool Children's Inquiry Team (2001). Royal Liverpool children's inquiry team: Summary and recommendations.
27. Scottish Executive (2001a). Patient focus and public involvement. Edinburgh: NHS Scotland: 16.
28. Scottish Executive (2001b). Research governance framework for health and community care. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.
29. Scottish Executive Health Department (2006). Research governance framework for health and community care. Edinburgh: SEHD: 32.
30. Seale, C. (2004). British Sociological Association (BSA) and Council for American Survey Research Organisations (CASRO). Research Ethics. Two Statements. Social research methods: A reader (chap. 69, pp. 448-452). London: Routlege.
31. Tod, A.M., Nicolson, P., et al. (2002). Ethical review of health service research in the UK: Implications for nursing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 40(4), 379-386.
32. Tully, J., Ninis, N., Booy, R., & Viner, R. (2000). The new system of review by multi-centre research ethic committees: Prospective study. British Medical Journal, 320, 1179-1182.
33. U.S. Government Printing Office (1949). Trials of war criminals before the Nuremberg military tribunals under control council law No. 10 (Vol. 2, pp. 181-182). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
34. World Medical Association (1964). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects (Adopted by the 18th WMA General Assembly, Helsinki, Finland, June 1964). Helsinki: WMA 2005.
35. World Medical Association (2002). World medical association declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Helsinki: WMA 30 March 2005.