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.

Justice in human research ethics : a conceptual and practical guide

One of the core values to be applied by a body reviewing the ethics of human research is justice. The inclusion of justice as a requirement in the ethical review of human research is relatively recent and its utility had been largely unexamined until debates arose about the conduct of international biomedical research in the late 1990s. The subsequent amendment of authoritative documents in ways that appeared to shift the meaning of conceptions of justice generated a deal of controversy. Another difficulty has been that both the theory and the substance of justice that are applied by researchers or reviewers can be frequently seen to be subjective. Both the concept of justice – whether distributive or commutative - and what counts as a just distribution or exchange – are given different weight and meanings by different people. In this paper, the origins and more recent debates about the requirement to consider justice as a criterion in the ethical review of human research are traced, relevant conceptions of justice are distinguished and the manner in which they can be applied meaningfully in the ethical review all human research is identified. The way that these concepts are articulated in, and the intent and function of, specific paragraphs of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (NHMRC, ARC, UA, 2007) (National Statement) is explained. The National Statement identifies a number of issues that should be considered when a human research ethics committee is reviewing the justice aspects of an application. It also provides guidance to researchers as to how they can show that there is a fair distribution of burdens and benefits in the participant experience and the research outcomes. It also provides practical guidance to researchers on how to think through issues of justice so that they can demonstrate that the design of their research projects meets this ethical requirement is also provided

The value of respect in human research ethics: A conceptual analysis and a practical guide

In order to continue to maintain public trust and confidence in human research, participants must be treated with respect. Researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee members need to be aware that modern considerations of this value include: the need for a valid consenting process, the protection of participants who have their capacity for consent compromised; the promotion of dignity for participants; and the effects that human research may have on cultures and communities. This paper explains the prominence of respect as a value when considering the ethics of human research and provides practical advice for both researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee members in developing respectful research practices.

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.

Access to medical records for research purposes:Varying perceptions across research ethics boards

Introduction: Variation across research ethics boards (REBs) in conditions placed on access to medical records for research purposes raises concerns around negative impacts on research quality and on human subject protection, including privacy. Aim: To study variation in REB consent requirements for retrospective chart review and who may have access to the medical record for data abstraction. Methods: Thirty 90-min face-to-face interviews were conducted with REB chairs and administrators affiliated with faculties of medicine in Canadian universities, using structured questions around a case study with open-ended responses. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and coded manually. Results: Fourteen sites (47%) required individual patient consent for the study to proceed as proposed. Three (10%) indicated that their response would depend on how potentially identifying variables would be managed. Eleven sites (38%) did not require consent. Two (7%) suggested a notification and opt-out process. Most stated that consent would be required if identifiable information was being abstracted from the record. Among those not requiring consent, there was substantial variation in recognising that the abstracted information could potentially indirectly re-identify individuals. Concern over access to medical records by an outside individual was also associated with requirement for consent. Eighteen sites (60%) required full committee review. Sixteen (53%) allowed an external research assistant to abstract information from the health record. Conclusions: Large variation was found across sites in the requirement for consent for research involving access to medical records. REBs need training in best practices for protecting privacy and confidentiality in health research. A forum for REB chairs to confidentially share concerns and decisions about specific studies could also reduce variation in decisions.

Research Ethics and Creative Arts Hypothetical

The merits of a research project are commonly framed in terms of perceived benefits with respect to knowledge production, wellbeing, the social good, and so on. Such measures can, however, be at odds with certain types of creative practice, which may be perceived as frivolous, unsettling, or shocking. Moreover, creative practice research methodologies commonly eschew more traditional research conventions. In exploring these tensions, this live performance event (including a DVD component) adapted key dramatic principles developed in Geoffrey Robertson's groundbreaking Hypotheticals. The event was presented for an audience of staff and students at QUT's Creative Industries Faculty in July 2010. It confirmed Dr Angela Romano's contention that: “Part of the ethical clearance process for practice-led researchers will be to find a language to explain the methodology, significance, merit and integrity of their research to people outside their field of practice.” (Angela Romano, QUT Creative Industries) “Part of the ethical clearance process for practice-led researchers will be to find a language to explain the methodology, significance, merit and integrity of their research to people outside their field of practice.”

Double standards in special medical research : questioning the discrepancy between requirements for medical research involving incompetent adults and medical research involving children

Medical research represents a substantial departure from conventional medical care. Medical care is patient-orientated, with decisions based on the best interests and/or wishes of the person receiving the care. In contrast, medical research is future-directed. Primarily it aims to contribute new knowledge about illness or disease, or new knowledge about interventions, such as drugs, that impact upon some human condition. Current State and Territory laws and research ethics guidelines in Australia relating to the review of medical research appropriately acknowledge that the functions of medical care and medical research differ. Prior to a medical research project commencing, the study must be reviewed and approved by a Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC). For medical research involving incompetent adults, some jurisdictions require an additional, independent safeguard by way of tribunal or court approval of medical research protocols. This extra review process reflects the uncertainty of medical research involvement, and the difficulties surrogate decision-makers of incompetent adults face in making decisions about others, and deliberating about the risks and benefits of research involvement. Parents of children also face the same difficulties when making decisions about their child’s research involvement. However, unlike the position concerning incompetent adults, there are no similar safeguards under Australian law in relation to the approval of medical research involving children. This column questions why this discrepancy exists with a view to generating further dialogue on the topic.

Introduction - research ethics : women, sex, and gender in biomedical research

The ethical governance of biomedical research is an area of intense international debate. Scholars argue about who should regulate and how, the appropriate role for ethics committees, what kind of research should be included, and who should be involved in monitoring compliance. A particular aspect of these debates concerns the inclusion of women as research participants and the efforts to ensure that researchers consistently investigate questions of sex and gender in health research. There is increasing evidence of the role of sex in the manifestation and course of some illnesses and their treatment. Moreover, evidence suggests that gendered expectations also affect health outcomes. This special issue investigates how researchers are addressing these issues and debates the appropriate roles of policy makers, ethicists, and lawyers in ensuring that sex and gender differences are taken into account in the development, conduct, and reporting of health research.

Contextualising merit and integrity within human research

The first consideration of any Australian Human Research Ethics Committee should be to satisfy itself that the project before them is worth undertaking. If the project does not add to the body of knowledge, if it does not improve social welfare or individual wellbeing then the use of human participants, their tissue or their data must be questioned. Sometimes, however, committees are criticised for appearing to adopt the role of scientific review committees. The intent of this paper is to provide researchers with an understanding of the ethical importance of demonstrating the merit of their research project and to help them develop protocols that show ethics committees that adequate attention has been paid to this central tenet in dealing ethically with human research participants. Any person proposing human research must be prepared to show that it is worthwhile. This paper will clarify the relationship between research merit and integrity, research ethics and the responsibilities of human research ethics committees.

Diffusing research into routine midwifery practice

This research applied Greenhalgh et al's (2005) organisational change theoretical framework and a case study method approach to explore the process of implementing a smoking cessation intervention for pregnant women. The study was carried out according to the principles laid down in the National statement on ethical conduct in human research, produced by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia. Ethical approval for the research was sought and received from Queensland University of Technology human research ethics committee, prior to the start of the study. The sample constituted four participants who had been involved in the process of disseminating a training programme for midwives to implement a smoking cessation intervention. Eight semi-structured interviews were undertaken with these participants and the interviews and background programme data were subjected to theoretical analysis. The data were analysed through the lens of the Greenhalgh et al (2005) framework. The result was a disaggregation and (re)aggregation of data in the formation of an analytical outcome (Charmaz, 2006).