Abstract
Background We conducted a survey to identify what types of health research could be exempted from research ethics reviews in Australia.
Methods We surveyed active Australian health researchers and members of Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC). We presented the respondents with eight hypothetical research scenarios, involving: N of 1 trials, no treatment studies, linked data sets, surplus samples, audits, surveys, interviews with patients, and professional opinion. We asked whether these scenarios should or should not be exempt from ethics review, and to provide (optional) explanations. We analysed the reasons thematically, to identify Top 3 reasons underlying the decisions.
Results Most frequent reasons for requiring ethics reviews, included: the need for independent oversight, privacy/confidentiality issues, review of scientific rigour, and publishing considerations. Most frequent reasons for exempting scenarios from reviews, included: level of risk, study design, privacy/confidentiality issues, and standard clinical practice. Four research scenarios listed the same Top 3 reasons for requiring ethics reviews: need for independent oversight, review of scientific rigour, privacy/confidentiality. Reasons for exempting were less uniform, but low risk was a Top 3 reason for 7 scenarios, and study design for 4 scenarios. Privacy/confidentiality was given as a Top 3 reason for both requiring and exempting from ethics the same two scenarios.
Conclusions The most frequently offered reasons in support of requiring ethics reviews for research scenarios are more uniform than those for exempting them. However, considerable disagreement exists about when the risks of research are so minimal that the exemption is appropriate.
Competing Interest Statement
AMS, IC, AS, JC, RM, PG: declare no support from any organisation for the submitted work, no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. AB declares: support by an NHMRC fellowship (APP1117784). The funder was not involved in the design, conduct, analysis of this study, or the decision to submit for publication. SEK declares: he chairs research ethics committees for Public Health England, the UK NHS, and Ministry of Defence. He is the UK adapting author for the Oxford University Press online Research Integrity course.
Funding Statement
No funding was obtained to conduct this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Bond University Human Research Ethics Committee approved the project (32214912)
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Deidentified data will be available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.
