Research Ethics Committee Activity in Northern Ireland (PDF 23 KB)

Research Ethics Committee Activity in Northern Ireland

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

An integrated psychology virtual research ethics committee

Research and professional ethics are an integral part of every Psychology degree, as this is seen as a key graduate learning outcome for students leaving to become clinicians working with clients and patients. The development of these skills is embedded in teaching, but they culminate in the final year of a degree when final year students must gain formal ethical approval for their final research project. Decision as to the ethical appropriateness of research are made by a Departmental Research Ethics Committee, which considers all research project proposals submitted by staff and students within the department. One of the challenges of this practice is the scale of work involved for committee members (Doyle & Buckley, 2014) who are all faculty members, and the tracking of applications and decisions, alongside the quality assurance required to ensure that all applications are treated fairly and equally. The time involved in performing this work is often underestimated by Universities, and the variety and complexity of decisions requires extensive discussion and negotiation. Traditionally, these decisions are reached by committee discussions, however this presents logistical difficulties as it requires meetings with quorate attendance. The University of Westminster launched a virtual tool in 2014 to facilitate the management of the Research Ethics Committee, to help track the progress of applications and to allow discussions to occur and be managed virtually. The Department of Psychology adopted the tools in September 2014 to deal with all ethics applications. Here we report on how this virtual committee has affected the role and practices of a working committee that deals with over 300 applications per year, and how an online ethics procedure has facilitated an integrated developmental approach to ethical education.

Applying for ethics committee approval

Provides information on ethics committee approval. Importance of research ethics committee; Application to the relevant local research ethics committee; Information on obtaining ethical approval.

Access to death certificates: What should research ethics committees require for approval?

PURPOSE: To present and discuss the reactions of research ethics committees (RECs) in a number of countries when asked for approval Of a study requiring access to death certificates to identify the physicians signing the certificates and to send them a four-page questionnaire about medical decisions made at the patient's end-of-life that could possibly have hastened death. METHODS: A simple questionnaire were sent to the responsible national investigator in an international study (Australia, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland) asking about the interactions between the national research group and the national/regional REC(s). RESULTS: Different laws or guidelines were used by the RECs. Denmark, the Netherlands, and Switzerland did not require an application to a REC. In Australia and Sweden, the RECs wanted changes in the research protocol, and one national research group had to refrain from publishing its results because the attrition rate became too high, probably due to the required changes in the protocol. RECOMMENDATIONS: Generally, similar demands from all RECs in relation to one project are strongly desirable. In epidemiological research, in which Voluntary completion of an anonymous questionnaire demonstrates consent, additional prior informed consent about being approached should not be required.

Protocol for ACCESS: a qualitative study exploring barriers and facilitators to accessing the emergency contraceptive pill from community pharmacies in Australia

Introduction The rate of unplanned pregnancy in Australia remains high, which has contributed to Australia having one of the highest abortion rates of developed countries with an estimated 1 in 5 women having an abortion. The emergency contraceptive pill (ECP) offers a safe way of preventing unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex has occurred. While the ECP has been available over-the-counter in Australian pharmacies for over a decade, its use has not significantly increased. This paper presents a protocol for a qualitative study that aims to identify the barriers and facilitators to accessing the ECP from community pharmacies in Australia. Methods and analysis Data will be collected through one-on-one interviews that are semistructured and in-depth. Partnerships have been established with 2 pharmacy groups and 2 women's health organisations to aid with the recruitment of women and pharmacists for data collection purposes. Interview questions explore domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework in order to assess the factors aiding and/or hindering access to ECP from community pharmacies. Data collected will be analysed using deductive content analysis. The expected benefits of this study are that it will help develop evidence-based workforce interventions to strengthen the capacity and performance of community pharmacists as key ECP providers. Ethics and dissemination The findings will be disseminated to the research team and study partners, who will brainstorm ideas for interventions that would address barriers and facilitators to access identified from the interviews. Dissemination will also occur through presentations and peer-reviewed publications and the study participants will receive an executive summary of the findings. The study has been evaluated and approved by the Monash Human Research Ethics Committee.

Ethical issues of human genetic databases : a challenge to classical health research ethics?

[Contents] - Introduction - Selected existing genetic database : distinctive features, ethical problems and the public debate - The ethical debate : principles, values and interests : the ethical foundations of guidelines - Selected issues of consensus and of controversy - Ethical issues of human genetic databases and the future This book compares the new area of biobanking with the tradition of ethically accepted classical research and highlights the distinctive features of existing databases and guidelines

Multisite Research Ethics Review: Problems and Potential Solutions

Article

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

BACKGROUND: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decision-making. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peer-reviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2 = 94.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2 = 98.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6-2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction We launched an investigator-initiated study(ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemia patients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitated to submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to first feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by 0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different final versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.

Need of reduced and harmonized bureaucracy in multi-centre clinical research - a case-report from a Swiss trial

Introduction: We launched an investigator-initiated study (ISRCTN31181395) to evaluate the potential benefit of pharmacokinetic-guided dosage individualization of imatinib for leukaemiapatients followed in public and private sectors. Following approval by the research ethics committee (REC) of the coordinating centre, recruitment throughout Switzerland necessitatedto submit the protocol to 11 cantonal RECs.Materials and Methods: We analysed requirements and evaluation procedures of the 12 RECs with associated costs.Results: 1-18 copies of the dossier, in total 4300 printed pages, were required (printing/posting costs: ~300 CHF) to meet initial requirements. Meeting frequencies of RECs ranged between 2 weeks and 2 months, time from submission to fi rst feedback took 2-75 days. Study approval was obtained from a chairman, a subor the full committee, the evaluation work being invoiced by0-1000 CHF (median: 750 CHF, total: 9200 CHF). While 5 RECs gave immediate approval, the other 6 rose in total 38 queries before study release, mainly related to wording in the patient information, leading to 7 different fi nal versions approved. Submission tasks employed an investigator half-time over about 6 months.Conclusion: While the necessity of clinical research evaluation by independent RECs is undisputed, there is a need of further harmonization and cooperation in evaluation procedures. Current administrative burden is indeed complex, time-consuming and costly. A harmonized electronic application form, preferably compatible with other regulatory bodies and European countries, could increase transparency, improve communication, and encourage academic multi-centre clinical research in Switzerland.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications.

OBJECTIVES: To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS: Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION: Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.