Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

(Australia) What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee (Papers: Caitlin Brandenburg, et al | March 2021)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Human Research Ethics on September 22, 2022
Keywords: Australia, Ethical review, Medical research, Protection for participants, Research ethics committees

The Linked Original Item was Posted On March, 21 2021

The words "RESEARCH EHICS" in 3D with a gritty finish

Abstract

This interesting paper (available on a Creative Commons basis) published in March 2021, looks at the reasons why health service research ethics committees in Australia reject applications.  This analysis is useful for researchers planning to submit to a health service’s HREC, as well as to anyone associated with those committees to reflect upon whether these are appropriate reasons to block a project and whether specific guidance material should be available to applicants to identify in advance if they will encounter problems.

One of the key criticisms of the ethical review process is the time taken to decision, and associated resource use. A key source of delay is that most submissions are required to respond to at least one request for further information or clarification from the Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). This study audited the request letters of a single Australian public health HREC using content analysis. Twenty-four submissions were analysed, including 355 individual request elements. Most submissions received a single request letter. There was a mean number of 14.2 (SD = 5.5) elements per letter for the first request and a mean of 2.1 (SD = 1.2) for subsequent requests. Administrative errors were the most common source of request for further information, occurring in all submissions. The second most common theme was the content of the Participant Information and Consent Form, occurring in 79% of submissions. Other common themes, present in over 50% of submissions, concerned: data collection and study procedures; general ethical considerations; recruitment and consent; site, setting or patient pool; research design and methodology; and data management and security. In terms of the general purpose of the HREC comments, 44% were direct corrections or specific requests for changes, 42% were asking for more information or clarification of existing information, and 14% were the HREC expressing concerns about an element of the study, without directly suggesting a change. Overall, the study provides some evidence to show that the quality of the submission (ensuring correct attachments, up to date documents, clear information etc.) could account for a significant proportion of the burden and delay associated with ethical review.

Keywords
Audit, health services research, research ethics, ethics committees, ethical review process

Brandenburg C., Thorning S., Ruthenberg C. (2021) What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee. Research Ethics. 2021;17(3):346-358. doi:10.1177/1747016121999935
Publisher (Open Access): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1747016121999935

Sage journal logo
What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee - Caitlin Brandenburg, Sarah Thorning, Carine Ruthenberg, 2021
One of the key criticisms of the ethical review process is the time taken to decision, and associated resource use. A key source of delay is that most submissio...

Related Reading

Investigating an ethical barrier – should HRECs require gatekeeper approval from universities before external research?

Expertise in ethics, research ethics or review?

Friday afternoon’s funny – The real reason your review feedback letter is late

Internal Human Research Ethics annual reporting

Should we accept funding for facial recognition research, and other dilemmas?

Worried your researchers might not be treating human research ethics as a core component of good research practice? Concerned they are not seeing it as their responsibility?

How we interpret the words ‘proportional review’

Research ethics review during a time of pandemic

Proportional processes can sometimes be the answer to a few (apparently competing) problems

Is it something I said (or the way I said it)?

Institutional approaches to evaluative practice

Conducting research with (not on) consumers in health – exploring ethical considerations

REAlising a collegiate Research Ethics Adviser network

What’s at risk? Who’s responsible? Moving beyond the physical, the immediate, the proximate, and the individual

Ethics review and self-censorship (Lisa Wynn)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in