Ethics review of multisite studies: The difficult case of community-based Indigenous health research

Medical Journal of Australia

Volumn 192, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 275-280

  Studdert, David M ^a   Vu, Tamara M ^a   Fox, Sarah S ^b,c,e   Anderson, Ian P ^a   Keeffe, Jill E ^b,c,d   Taylor, Hugh R ^a,d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE   (Australia)

^b CENTRE FOR EYE RESEARCH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

^c ROYAL VICTORIAN EYE AND EAR HOSPITAL   (Australia)

^d VISION COOPERATIVE RESEARCH CENTRE   (Australia)

^e National Indigenous Eye Health Survey   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

AUSTRALIA; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE POLICY; MEDICAL ETHICS; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; TERTIARY HEALTH CARE; ABORIGINE; ARTICLE; ETHICS; HEALTH SURVEY; HUMAN; MULTICENTER STUDY; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; RESEARCH ETHICS;

AUSTRALIA; COMMUNITY-BASED PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH; ETHICAL REVIEW; ETHICS CONSULTATION; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HEALTH SURVEYS; HUMANS; MULTICENTER STUDIES AS TOPIC; OCEANIC ANCESTRY GROUP;

EID: 77950620022     PISSN: 0025729X     EISSN: 13265377     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2010.tb03508.x     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Weeramanthri T, Currie BJ. Isn't one institutional ethics committee's approval enough? Med J Aust 1994; 161: 398-399.
2. Banscott Health Consulting. Report of the review of access to unapproved therapeutic goods. Canberra: Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2005. http://www.tga.gov.au/consult/2005/cltrialrevrep.pdf (accessed Jun 2009).
3. Jamrozik K, Kolybaba M. Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia? Med J Aust 1999; 170: 26-28. (Pubitemid 29021058)
4. Gold JL, Dewa CS. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 291-308.
5. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1405-1408. (Pubitemid 34754617)
6. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, et al. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 279-290. (Pubitemid 40229360)
7. Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, et al. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 805-809. (Pubitemid 41446509)
8. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res 2006; 41: 214-231.
9. Larson E, Bratts T, Zwanziger J, Stone P. A survey of IRB process in 68 US hospitals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2004; 36: 260-265.
10. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med 2007; 82: 654-660.
11. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards' decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235-241. (Pubitemid 32171764)
12. Burman W, Breese P, Weis S, et al. The effects of a local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 245-255. (Pubitemid 36570376)
13. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, et al. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003; 290: 360-366.
14. Al-Shahi Salman R, Brock TM, Dennis MS, et al. Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 101-104.
15. Ah-See KW, Mackenzie J, Thakker NS, Maran AGD. Local research ethics committee approval for a national study in Scotland. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998; 43: 303-305.
16. Middle C, Johnson A, Petty T, et al. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ 1995; 311: 659-660.
17. Jenkin R, Bennett J, Frommer M, Madronio C. A streamlined national approach to scientific and ethics review of multi-centre health and medical research in Australia: issues and options, 2006. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files- nhmrc/file/health-ethics/hrecs/A-streamlined-national-approach-to%20scientific- and-ethics-reviewvof%20multi-centre-health-and-medical-research-in-Australia. pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
18. National Health and Medical Research Council. Harmonisation of Multicentre Ethical Review (HoMER) enabling system: proposed national approach for the adoption of a single ethical and scientific review for multi-centre health and medical human research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2008. http://www.nhmrc.gov. au/-files-nhmrc/file/health-ethics/homer/consultation/homer-consultation- complete.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
19. National Health and Medical Research Council. Values and ethics: guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2003. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/file/ health-ethics/human/conduct/guidelines/e52.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
20. Anderson I. Ethics and health research in Aboriginal communities. In: Daly J, editor. Ethical intersections: health research, methods and researcher responsibility. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1996.
21. Griew RM, McAulley D. Review of the interim guidelines on ethical matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: background paper. Canberra: Australian Health Ethics Committee, 2001.
22. Anderson I, Griew R, McAullay D. Ethics guidelines, health research and Indigenous Australians. N Z Bioeth J 2003; 4: 20-29.
23. Humphery K. The development of the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on ethical matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a brief documentary and oral history. Melbourne: VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, University of Melbourne, 2003. (Discussion Paper No. 8.)
24. National Indigenous Eye Health Survey Team. National Indigenous Eye Health Survey: full report. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2009. http://www.cera.org.au/publications/reports/ 091012%20NIEHS%20Final%20Report%20V2-0d.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
25. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London: COREC, 2001. http://www.dh.gov.uk/ en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/ DH-4005727 (accessed Jun 2009).
26. Dunn NR, Arscott A, Mann RD. Costs of seeking ethics approval before and after the introduction of multicenter research ethics committees. J Roy Soc Med 2000; 93: 511-512.
27. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicenter research ethics committees: Prospective study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1179-1182.
28. Al-Shahi R. Research ethics committees in the UK - the pressure is now on research and development departments. J Roy Soc Med 2005; 98: 444-447.
29. National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2007. http://www.nhmrc.gov. au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm (accessed Jun 2009).
30. National Health and Medical Research Council. Keeping research on track: a guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about heal th research ethics. Canber ra: NHMRC, 2005. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/-files-nhmrc/file/ publications/synopses/e65.pdf (accessed Jun 2009).
31. Taylor HR, Fox SS. Ethical hurdles in Indigenous research. Aust N Z J Public Health 2008; 32: 489-490.