A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.
<h4>Background</h4>To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, resea...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
2015-01-01
|
| Series: | PLoS ONE |
| Online Access: | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133639&type=printable |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1832539982237007872 |
|---|---|
| author | Stuart G Nicholls Tavis P Hayes Jamie C Brehaut Michael McDonald Charles Weijer Raphael Saginur Dean Fergusson |
| author_facet | Stuart G Nicholls Tavis P Hayes Jamie C Brehaut Michael McDonald Charles Weijer Raphael Saginur Dean Fergusson |
| author_sort | Stuart G Nicholls |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <h4>Background</h4>To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.<h4>Results</h4>Few studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial--randomised or otherwise--of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review.<h4>Discussion</h4>Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-986be68933e0430abfdfad547b219bba |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1932-6203 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2015-01-01 |
| publisher | Public Library of Science (PLoS) |
| record_format | Article |
| series | PLoS ONE |
| spelling | doaj-art-986be68933e0430abfdfad547b219bba2025-02-05T05:33:12ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032015-01-01107e013363910.1371/journal.pone.0133639A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review.Stuart G NichollsTavis P HayesJamie C BrehautMichael McDonaldCharles WeijerRaphael SaginurDean Fergusson<h4>Background</h4>To date there is no established consensus of assessment criteria for evaluating research ethics review.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a scoping review of empirical research assessing ethics review processes in order to identify common elements assessed, research foci, and research gaps to aid in the development of assessment criteria. Electronic searches of Ovid Medline, PsychInfo, and the Cochrane DSR, ACP Journal Club, DARE, CCTR, CMR, HTA, and NHSEED, were conducted. After de-duplication, 4234 titles and abstracts were reviewed. Altogether 4036 articles were excluded following screening of titles, abstracts and full text. A total of 198 articles included for final data extraction.<h4>Results</h4>Few studies originated from outside North America and Europe. No study reported using an underlying theory or framework of quality/effectiveness to guide study design or analyses. We did not identify any studies that had involved a controlled trial--randomised or otherwise--of ethics review procedures or processes. Studies varied substantially with respect to outcomes assessed, although tended to focus on structure and timeliness of ethics review.<h4>Discussion</h4>Our findings indicate a lack of consensus on appropriate assessment criteria, exemplified by the varied study outcomes identified, but also a fragmented body of research. To date research has been largely quantitative, with little attention given to stakeholder experiences, and is largely cross sectional. A lack of longitudinal research to date precludes analyses of change or assessment of quality improvement in ethics review.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133639&type=printable |
| spellingShingle | Stuart G Nicholls Tavis P Hayes Jamie C Brehaut Michael McDonald Charles Weijer Raphael Saginur Dean Fergusson A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. PLoS ONE |
| title | A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. |
| title_full | A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. |
| title_fullStr | A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. |
| title_full_unstemmed | A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. |
| title_short | A Scoping Review of Empirical Research Relating to Quality and Effectiveness of Research Ethics Review. |
| title_sort | scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review |
| url | https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133639&type=printable |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT stuartgnicholls ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT tavisphayes ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT jamiecbrehaut ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT michaelmcdonald ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT charlesweijer ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT raphaelsaginur ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT deanfergusson ascopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT stuartgnicholls scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT tavisphayes scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT jamiecbrehaut scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT michaelmcdonald scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT charlesweijer scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT raphaelsaginur scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview AT deanfergusson scopingreviewofempiricalresearchrelatingtoqualityandeffectivenessofresearchethicsreview |