Cargando…

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved

The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance pro...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sidaway, Mark, Collett, Clive, Kolstoe, Simon Erik
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10317218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37399215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288083
_version_ 1785067857408688128
author Sidaway, Mark
Collett, Clive
Kolstoe, Simon Erik
author_facet Sidaway, Mark
Collett, Clive
Kolstoe, Simon Erik
author_sort Sidaway, Mark
collection PubMed
description The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified strong public support for alternative ethics review processes. Here we report feedback from 151 current research ethics committee members conducted at three annual training events, where we asked members to critically reflect on their ethics review activities, and to share new ideas or ways of working. The results showed a high regard for good quality discussion among members with diverse experience. Good chairing, organisation, feedback and the opportunity for reflection on ways of working were considered key. Areas for improvement included the consistency of information provided to committees by researchers, and better structuring of discussions by allowing signposting of the key issues that ethics committee members might need to consider.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10317218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103172182023-07-04 Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved Sidaway, Mark Collett, Clive Kolstoe, Simon Erik PLoS One Research Article The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments’ Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified strong public support for alternative ethics review processes. Here we report feedback from 151 current research ethics committee members conducted at three annual training events, where we asked members to critically reflect on their ethics review activities, and to share new ideas or ways of working. The results showed a high regard for good quality discussion among members with diverse experience. Good chairing, organisation, feedback and the opportunity for reflection on ways of working were considered key. Areas for improvement included the consistency of information provided to committees by researchers, and better structuring of discussions by allowing signposting of the key issues that ethics committee members might need to consider. Public Library of Science 2023-07-03 /pmc/articles/PMC10317218/ /pubmed/37399215 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288083 Text en © 2023 Sidaway et al https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Sidaway, Mark
Collett, Clive
Kolstoe, Simon Erik
Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title_full Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title_fullStr Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title_full_unstemmed Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title_short Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
title_sort evidence from uk research ethics committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10317218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37399215
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0288083
work_keys_str_mv AT sidawaymark evidencefromukresearchethicscommitteemembersonwhatmakesagoodresearchethicsreviewandwhatcanbeimproved
AT collettclive evidencefromukresearchethicscommitteemembersonwhatmakesagoodresearchethicsreviewandwhatcanbeimproved
AT kolstoesimonerik evidencefromukresearchethicscommitteemembersonwhatmakesagoodresearchethicsreviewandwhatcanbeimproved