Gaining Ethics Approval Research Articles

When Ethics Becomes Unethical: An Autoethnographic Account of Gaining Ethics Approval to Conduct Ethnography in a Healthcare Setting

AbstractMany ethnographic researchers have raised concerns over the potential impacts that the institutionalization of ethics review boards can have on social science research, especially within healthcare settings. However, few articles to-date have documented how these norms and practices play out in actuality. This paper, therefore, uses autoethnography to provide an account of three ethical challenges that arose during my process of seeking ethics approval through institutional review boards to conduct ethnographic fieldwork in a healthcare setting. In doing so, I demonstrate how bureaucratic accountability took precedence over my research expertise, making the research that I initially set out to do inaccessible, questionable, and ‘unethical’, despite being carried out in accordance with the current standards governing research involving human participants and their data. I conclude with ways to move beyond this existing ethics structure towards a more collaborative approach between ethics boards, researchers, and research participants grounded within the realities of the field.

Gaining ethics approval for health professions education research.

Within health professions education (HPE), there is a well-established and expanding literature offering empirical evidence to inform pedagogic practice. Research ethics refers to the set of professional standards and principles that should be followed to ensure that work is conducted in a responsible and legitimate manner. Conducting scholarly inquiry within educational practice can be categorized as either research or evaluation, but boundaries between the two approaches may be blurred. Ethical risks in HPE research include coercion, psychological stress and infringement upon data privacy. This review considers ethical considerations at each stage of the research process and makes practical recommendations for the HPE researcher.

Child-to-Parent Violence and Abuse: Navigating the Ethical Line When Involving Children in Biographic Research

ABSTRACT This paper explores the application of ethical thinking from the perspective of someone with the dual role of social worker and PhD researcher. The focus of the research was family secrets and their influence upon child-to-parent violence and abuse (CPVA). The participants were children and their parents, who, at the time of the research, were experiencing family violence and abuse. This paper was developed from a conversation between Lee-Ann and Louise. Lee-Ann was Louise’s PhD supervisor and was therefore involved in supporting Louise in gaining ethics approval, as well as holding continued reflexive conversations about the ethical questions and dilemmas that arose throughout this study. This paper has shown the importance of hearing the voices of children within research about CPVA. Children can offer a rich layer of information that is seldom heard. It also shows that there may be a different lens through which ethics can be considered during research, not only the purely objective or academic, but also from a practitioner-researcher in a social care setting position.

Co-researching and designing innovative learning approaches in sexuality and relationships education

ABSTRACT Young people are rarely consulted about what and how they are taught in sexuality and relationships education (SRE) at school. The reasons for this are complex and relate to adults’ reluctance to acknowledge the need to take account of students’ perspectives on personally sensitive matters. In this article, we provide a brief rationale and justification for enabling students to have a greater say in the design and development of teaching approaches in SRE. We outline, in practical ways, how we used participatory research methods to engage young people in researching and developing innovative teaching and learning resources that utilised their musical, design, artistic, technological and literacy talents. In reflecting on some of the benefits associated with using participative research approaches, we discuss higher levels of student engagement and ‘playfulness’, an enhanced acceptance of, and respect for, difference and diversity, and the greater use of critical thinking during the research process. The challenges we faced were due to difficulties gaining ethics approval for an emergent research design from a human research ethics committee which insisted on pre-specified research protocols, and due to the pervasive effect of the taken-for-granted practices and ways of doing things in secondary schools that preserve existing power relationships and limit innovation and change. Despite these challenges, we remain positive about the potential of participatory research to provide students with a greater say in their sexuality and relationships education.

Ethical Evaluation and Action Research: Toward New North-South Research Collaborations?

This case study examines the author's experience gaining ethics approval for an action research project, to build capacity for new North-South research collaborations among graduate students trained in health and environment. It is argued that the ethics review process and action research framework seem to talk past each other. While the former may reinforce the divide between researchers and researched communities, potentially exacerbating North-South power asymmetries, the latter may presume that such asymmetries are overcome too easily through the good intentions of northern researchers, rather than through the work of southern actors to take back power. Considerations are offered for more realistic approaches to ethical North-South research collaborations.

“Only Applies to Research Conducted in Sweden…”: Dilemmas in Gaining Ethics Approval in Transnational Qualitative Research

Transnational research funders such as the European Commission and NordForsk increasingly require researchers to conduct transnational research. Yet, there is little research on what this means for seeking ethics approval, not least for qualitative researchers. Much work on ethics approval comes from Canada, the United States, and other Anglophone countries, often in a health-related context, and centers on issues between researchers and research ethics boards (REBs), or on inconsistent or inappropriate decision-making by REBs. Ethical conduct within research has, of course, generated a rich literature but not on gaining ethics approval when conducting qualitative transnational research. Rather, the underlying situation usually is that the research is conducted in the same geopolitical space as where the REB is located. Drawing on two cases studies, in which researchers located in one country, Sweden, sought ethics approval to conduct research in other European countries, we explore some of the challenges that we faced in gaining such approval and provide some suggestions how this process might be made both more efficient and more productive for researchers and research funders alike.

The ethics in qualitative health research: special considerations.

A sound knowledge of the nature of qualitative research, along with an appreciation of some special ethical considerations, is needed for rigorous reviews to be conducted. The overall character of qualitative research is described with an emphasis on the tendency of qualitative researchers to explore sensitive topics using theoretically informed methods. A number of specific features of qualitative that require additional ethical attention and awareness are also examined including the following: 1) participants are frequently quite vulnerable and require protection because the data collection methods, such as in-depth interviews, can delve into personally and politically charged matters; 2) naturalistic observation can raise concerns regarding privacy and consent; 3) the potential for the identifiability of the results of this research may require extra efforts to maintain confidentiality. Ultimately, Reseach Ethics Committee members must be knowledgeable about qualitative approaches to be able to assess the potential harms and benefits in a protocol carefully. Without this knowledge gaining ethics approval can be overly difficult for researchers and the best practices for protecting human participants can be overlooked.

NHS ethics: Shoe-bombers and why ‘less needs to be more’

Neuropsychological research poses several challenges. Some of these, such as developing new ideas and conducting innovative studies, are approached with great enthusiasm, and are an integral and motivating part of academic research. By contrast, other challenges feel like gruelling, near-impossible tasks, designed to test the will of would-be researchers. For many, the process of obtaining UK National Health Service (NHS) ethics approval is the archetypal example of such a task. Baron (this issue) highlights several of the difficulties concerning the ethical review of research involving human subjects, identifying flaws in the current system, and their negative impact on the research process. In this commentary we further reflect on the current system for gaining ethics approval to work with brain-injured patients in the UK, and its implications for neuropsychology research in the UK and beyond.

Involuntary admissions under the Mental Health Act 2007 (New South Wales): A comparison of patients detained by ambulance officers, medical practitioners and accredited persons in an emergency department

The Mental Health Act (MHA) 2007 (New South Wales [NSW]) is used to transport to, detain and treat individuals in a mental health facility. Patients are frequently taken to EDs under the MHA or detained in the ED for a mental health assessment. In NSW, medical practitioners, accredited persons, police and more recently ambulance officers, are authorised to write certificates under the MHA. There is an absence of research on the use of the MHA in NSW EDs. The primary research question for this study was: 'What is the involuntary admission rate for persons detained under the MHA in an NSW tertiary referral ED?' After gaining ethics approval, the research team prospectively collected the MHA certificates written for patients in the ED over a 3 month period from February to May 2011. The research team reviewed the MHA certificate and medical records to characterise demographics, outcome, length of stay in ED and certificate suitability. Outcomes of interest were involuntary psychiatric admission or any inpatient admission, and were compared between the different professional groups completing the certificate. The involuntary admission rate for patients certified by ambulance officers under the NSW MHA was 27%, compared with a 60% involuntary admission rate when certified by medical practitioners or accredited persons. The mean average length of stay in the ED for patients certified under the MHA was 10 h. Seventy-five per cent of patients presented out of hours. Ambulance officer certification was a poor predictor of involuntary psychiatric admission in the Royal Prince Alfred Hospital Emergency Department. ED physicians should have the authority to revoke the certificate if, following assessment and treatment, the patient no longer fulfils criteria for detention under the MHA.

How to make the research ethics committee your new best friend

Research is an important part of training and the practice of medicine; all research needs to have the approval of a research ethics committee (REC). Ethics: ‘moral principles that govern...

The challenges of gaining ethics approval for ethnographic research in the pre‐hospital setting

is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [Roberts, L., Henderson, J., Willis, E. and Muir-Cochrane, E. (2013), The challenges of gaining ethics approval for ethnographic research in the pre-hospital setting. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 20: 374–378. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12014], which has been published in final form at [http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jpm.12014]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.

Who's afraid of sex at school? The politics of researching culture, religion and sexuality at school

This paper explores the methodological politics of researching at the intersections of sexuality, culture and religion in secondary schools. It draws on experiences during a project concerned with how to address cultural and religious diversity in sexuality education in Australia and New Zealand. The paper focuses on two methodological sticking points, one occurring inside academia and the other outside, in schools. The first coheres around the process of gaining ethics approval from multiple institutional committees and the second accesses schools for participation. These sticking points are conceptualized as effects of a set of discursive and material constraints which are idiosyncratic to school-based sexualities research. We argue that discourses of sexuality and young people are mobilized in both spaces and intersect with a social moment of ‘risk anxiety’ in ways that shape the methodological possibilities of the research. These discourses serve to constitute sexualities research as ‘risky’ and ‘controversial’, an image which impedes the generation of new knowledge in the field. By rendering challenges of this research visible and discursively deconstructing the reasons for them, we refuse to dismiss school-based sexualities research as ‘too hard’. Instead, we aim to keep this topic firmly on the educational research agenda by alerting researchers to its challenges so they may prepare for them.

Talking about suicide

While it is acknowledged that there is a need for more qualitative research on suicide, it is also clear that the ethics of undertaking such research need to be addressed. This article uses the case study of the authors' experience of gaining ethics approval for a research project that asks people what it is like to feel suicidal to (a) analyse the limits of confidentiality and anonymity and (b) consider the ways in which the process of ethics review can shape and constrain suicide research. This leads to a discussion of the ways in which ethics committees assess and monitor qualitative research more generally and some preliminary suggestions for how this might be improved.

Understanding ethics guidelines using an internet-based expert system

National and international guidelines outlining ethical conduct in research involving humans and animals have evolved into large and complex documents making the process of gaining ethics approval a complicated task...

THE AUSTRALASIAN LAPARAOSCOPIC COLON CANCER STUDY

THE AUSTRALASIAN LAPARAOSCOPIC COLON CANCER STUDY

Gaining human ethics approval: a strategy for refining research studies

We argue that developing a human ethics application is an effective method for refining the intent and design of research studies. Our study aimed to investigate the delivery of end-of-life and palliative care nursing to residents of an aged care unit in a Multi-purpose Service/Centre in rural Victoria. We used the ethics application process as a strategy to focus the study, and to refine the data collection and analysis techniques. It is our contention that the process of completing the application and gaining ethics approval is laborious; however, the intellectualising that occurs provides researchers with an opportunity to reflect upon and refine their studies, thus ensuring the ultimate success and timely completion of research investigations.

Getting Ethics Committee Approval for Research: A Beginners Guide

The process of gaining ethics approval is an essential step in conducting research. This paper acts as a beginners guide to the process of ethics approval for first time and student applicants, and offers some tips to planning for ethics approval as part of the research methodology to minimise any potential revisions the ethics committee may request. The paper also briefly discusses how seeking ethics approval can improve research practices and benefit research design

Multicentre research: negotiating the ethics approval obstacle course

Summary, by area health service (AHS, coded S to Z), of different requirements for gaining ethics approval for a multicentre study Area health service S T U V W X Y ZNo. of pages of application form19 20 19 20 12 23 2 11No. of copies of form required1 1 17 15 20 16 1 14No. of hospitals in AHS covered by approval22413535Approval covered private hospitals in AHS alsona na Yes No NonaNonaNo. of contacts made (phone/letter/email) to gain approval20 15 20 15 20 30 10 20Time taken to gain approval3 months5 months4.5 months8weeks6weeks6weeks1week3weeksSpecial requests during approval processA F A, B, C, EA A, D A G, HApproved after first submissionYes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes na=not applicable.A=Asked for local researcher to be a contact person for the study.B=Charged a $33 fee to submit application.C=Requested scientific protocol with references.D=Requested budget form.E=Reviewed by scientific advisory committee before human research ethics committee (HREC).F=Requested consent and subject information forms.G=University HREC’s approval as well as approval of area health service HREC required.H=Final approval required from chief executive officer of major hospital in that AHS.

Putting the 'informed' into 'consent': a matter of plain language.

Health professionals frequently write at the same level for lay readers as they write for peers. In relation to health research and ethical requirements to provide written explanation of studies, this can complicate the notion of informed consent. Plain language information statements need to be clearly understood by research subjects if the ethics process for research approval is to fulfil its objective. Many delays in gaining ethics approval for child-related research are caused by substandard plain language statements (PLS). We describe specific issues for information statements for research with children, young people and their parents/guardians, particularly in consideration of the literacy capabilities of the general population. We highlight the usefulness of everyday language when explaining research and science in writing to families, and present some guidelines for writing PLS that have emerged from the introduction of a plain language service by an Ethics in Human Research Committee.