Out of the frying pan? Streamlining the ethics review process of multisite qualitative research projects
Rick A. M. Iedema A C , Suellen Allen A , Kate Britton B and Suyin Hor AA Centre for Health Communication, University of Technology Sydney, Jones Street, Broadway, NSW 2007, Australia. Email: suellen.allen@uts.edu.au, suyin.hor@uts.edu.au
B College of Fine Arts, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia. Email: k.britton@unsw.edu.au
C Corresponding author. Email: r.iedema@uts.edu.au
Australian Health Review 37(2) 137-139 https://doi.org/10.1071/AH11044
Submitted: 7 May 2011 Accepted: 26 July 2012 Published: 21 December 2012
Abstract
This paper describes the ethics approval processes for two multicentre, nationwide, qualitative health service research projects. The paper explains that the advent of the National Ethics Application Form has brought many improvements, but that attendant processes put in place at local health network and Human Research Ethics Committee levels may have become significantly more complicated, particularly for innovative qualitative research projects. The paper raises several questions based on its analysis of ethics application processes currently in place.
What is known about the topic? The complexity of multicentre research ethics applications for research in health services has been addressed by the introduction of the National Ethics Application Form. Uptake of the form across the country’s human research ethics committees has been uneven.
What does this paper add? This paper adds detailed insight into the ethics application process as it is currently enacted across the country. The paper details this process with reference to difficulties faced by multisite and qualitative studies in negotiating access to research sites, ethics committees’ relative unfamiliarity with qualitative research, and apparent tensions between harmonisation and local sites’ autonomy in approving research.
What are the implications for practitioners? Practitioners aiming to engage in research need to be aware that ethics approval takes place in an uneven procedural landscape, made up of variable levels of ethics approval harmonisation and intricate governance or site-specific assessment processes.
References
[1] National Health & Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: National Health & Medical Research Council; 2007.[2] Elwyn G, Seagrove A, Thorne K, Cheung WY. Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol. BMJ 2005; 330 847
| Ethics and research governance in a multicentre study: add 150 days to your study protocol.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15817562PubMed |
[3] Frew D, Martlew A. Research governance: new hope for ethics committees? Monash Bioeth Rev 2007; 26 17–23.
| 17867319PubMed |
[4] Loblay R. Human research ethics - a work in progress. Med J Aust 2008; 188 628–9.
| 18513168PubMed |
[5] Kidd T, Guy B, Marks M, Bye P, Wainwright C, Robinson P, et al Multi-centre research in Australia: analysis of a recent National Health and Medical Research Council-funded project. Respirology 2009; 14 1051–5.
| Multi-centre research in Australia: analysis of a recent National Health and Medical Research Council-funded project.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19740265PubMed |
[6] Pittman K. Streamlining scientific and ethics review of multi-centre health and medical research in Australia. Canberra: National Health & Medical Research Council; 2007
[7] Wainwright P, Saunders J. What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research. J Med Ethics 2004; 30 313–7.
| What are local issues? The problem of the local review of research.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:STN:280:DC%2BD2c3nsVSitw%3D%3D&md5=7dfc5e58eeb214be66dd0d9f324b20cfCAS | 15173371PubMed |
[8] Iedema R, Mallock N, Sorensen R, Manias E, Tuckett A, Williams A, et al. Final report: evaluation of the National Open Disclosure Pilot Program. Sydney: The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care; 2008.
[9] Librett M, Perrone D. Apples and oranges: ethnography and the IRB. Qualitative Research 2010; 10 729–47.
| Apples and oranges: ethnography and the IRB.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[10] Iedema R, Long D, Forsyth R, Lee B. Visibilizing clinical work: video ethnography in the contemporary hospital. Health Sociol Rev 2006; 15 156–68.
| Visibilizing clinical work: video ethnography in the contemporary hospital.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[11] Hurdley R. In the picture or off the wall? Ethical regulation, research habitus, and unpeopled ethnography. Qual Inq 2010; 16 517–28.
| In the picture or off the wall? Ethical regulation, research habitus, and unpeopled ethnography.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
[12] Daly J, Bandyopadhyay M, Riggs E, Williamson L. Ethical review and the assessment of research proposals using qualitative research methods. Monash Bioeth Rev 2007; 27 43–53.
[13] National Health & Medical Research Council. Challenging ethical issues in contemporary research on human beings. Canberra: National Health & Medical Research Council; 2006
