Multisite research ethics review

Problems and potential solutions

Aidan Ferguson, Zubin Master

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Large scale, multisite clinical research trials have been increasing in frequency. As it stands currently, a research project performed at multiple institutions requires ethics review at each institution. While local (institutional) review may be necessary in some instances, repetitive reviews may require unnecessary changes and not serve to further protect participants. Multiple ethics reviews of a single study have been shown to delay research and require, in some cases, significant resources in order to fulfill the requests of individual ethics boards. This literature review discusses the conceptual issues and outlines empirical research surrounding multisite ethics review from different jurisdictions, as well as alternative methods to streamline the ethics review process including reciprocal review, centralized review, and a proposed modification to the centralized review process.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalBioethiqueOnline
Volume5
StatePublished - Jan 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Research Ethics
research ethics
Ethics
moral philosophy
Research
Empirical Research
empirical research
jurisdiction
research project
Ethics Review
Clinical Trials
resources

Keywords

  • Centralized review
  • Human subject research
  • Institutional review board
  • Multisite ethics review
  • Multisite research
  • Reciprocal review
  • Research ethics board

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Health(social science)
  • Philosophy
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Multisite research ethics review : Problems and potential solutions. / Ferguson, Aidan; Master, Zubin.

In: BioethiqueOnline, Vol. 5, 01.01.2016.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{2c511daa66184a0196226ff4fe8d9003,
title = "Multisite research ethics review: Problems and potential solutions",
abstract = "Large scale, multisite clinical research trials have been increasing in frequency. As it stands currently, a research project performed at multiple institutions requires ethics review at each institution. While local (institutional) review may be necessary in some instances, repetitive reviews may require unnecessary changes and not serve to further protect participants. Multiple ethics reviews of a single study have been shown to delay research and require, in some cases, significant resources in order to fulfill the requests of individual ethics boards. This literature review discusses the conceptual issues and outlines empirical research surrounding multisite ethics review from different jurisdictions, as well as alternative methods to streamline the ethics review process including reciprocal review, centralized review, and a proposed modification to the centralized review process.",
keywords = "Centralized review, Human subject research, Institutional review board, Multisite ethics review, Multisite research, Reciprocal review, Research ethics board",
author = "Aidan Ferguson and Zubin Master",
year = "2016",
month = "1",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
journal = "Canadian Journal of Bioethics",
issn = "1923-2799",
publisher = "University of Montreal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Multisite research ethics review

T2 - Problems and potential solutions

AU - Ferguson, Aidan

AU - Master, Zubin

PY - 2016/1/1

Y1 - 2016/1/1

N2 - Large scale, multisite clinical research trials have been increasing in frequency. As it stands currently, a research project performed at multiple institutions requires ethics review at each institution. While local (institutional) review may be necessary in some instances, repetitive reviews may require unnecessary changes and not serve to further protect participants. Multiple ethics reviews of a single study have been shown to delay research and require, in some cases, significant resources in order to fulfill the requests of individual ethics boards. This literature review discusses the conceptual issues and outlines empirical research surrounding multisite ethics review from different jurisdictions, as well as alternative methods to streamline the ethics review process including reciprocal review, centralized review, and a proposed modification to the centralized review process.

AB - Large scale, multisite clinical research trials have been increasing in frequency. As it stands currently, a research project performed at multiple institutions requires ethics review at each institution. While local (institutional) review may be necessary in some instances, repetitive reviews may require unnecessary changes and not serve to further protect participants. Multiple ethics reviews of a single study have been shown to delay research and require, in some cases, significant resources in order to fulfill the requests of individual ethics boards. This literature review discusses the conceptual issues and outlines empirical research surrounding multisite ethics review from different jurisdictions, as well as alternative methods to streamline the ethics review process including reciprocal review, centralized review, and a proposed modification to the centralized review process.

KW - Centralized review

KW - Human subject research

KW - Institutional review board

KW - Multisite ethics review

KW - Multisite research

KW - Reciprocal review

KW - Research ethics board

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984955788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984955788&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Review article

VL - 5

JO - Canadian Journal of Bioethics

JF - Canadian Journal of Bioethics

SN - 1923-2799

ER -