Cargando…

Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands

BACKGROUND: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify exa...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Scott, Anna Mae, Kolstoe, Simon, Ploem, M. C. ( Corrette), Hammatt, Zoë, Glasziou, Paul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6986069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4
_version_ 1783491908772823040
author Scott, Anna Mae
Kolstoe, Simon
Ploem, M. C. ( Corrette)
Hammatt, Zoë
Glasziou, Paul
author_facet Scott, Anna Mae
Kolstoe, Simon
Ploem, M. C. ( Corrette)
Hammatt, Zoë
Glasziou, Paul
author_sort Scott, Anna Mae
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. METHODS: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. RESULTS: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories – evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation – were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. CONCLUSIONS: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6986069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69860692020-01-30 Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands Scott, Anna Mae Kolstoe, Simon Ploem, M. C. ( Corrette) Hammatt, Zoë Glasziou, Paul Health Res Policy Syst Research BACKGROUND: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. METHODS: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. RESULTS: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories – evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation – were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. CONCLUSIONS: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales. BioMed Central 2020-01-28 /pmc/articles/PMC6986069/ /pubmed/31992320 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4 Text en © The Author(s). 2020 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Scott, Anna Mae
Kolstoe, Simon
Ploem, M. C. ( Corrette)
Hammatt, Zoë
Glasziou, Paul
Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title_full Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title_fullStr Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title_full_unstemmed Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title_short Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands
title_sort exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing australia, the united kingdom, the united states and the netherlands
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6986069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31992320
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4
work_keys_str_mv AT scottannamae exemptinglowriskhealthandmedicalresearchfromethicsreviewscomparingaustraliatheunitedkingdomtheunitedstatesandthenetherlands
AT kolstoesimon exemptinglowriskhealthandmedicalresearchfromethicsreviewscomparingaustraliatheunitedkingdomtheunitedstatesandthenetherlands
AT ploemmccorrette exemptinglowriskhealthandmedicalresearchfromethicsreviewscomparingaustraliatheunitedkingdomtheunitedstatesandthenetherlands
AT hammattzoe exemptinglowriskhealthandmedicalresearchfromethicsreviewscomparingaustraliatheunitedkingdomtheunitedstatesandthenetherlands
AT glaszioupaul exemptinglowriskhealthandmedicalresearchfromethicsreviewscomparingaustraliatheunitedkingdomtheunitedstatesandthenetherlands