Skip to main content
medRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search

Exempting low-risk health research from ethics reviews to better serve the interests of the patients and public: a qualitative analysis of survey responses

View ORCID ProfileAnna Mae Scott, Iain Chalmers, Adrian Barnett, Alexandre Stephens, Simon E. Kolstoe, Justin Clark, Richard Matthews, Paul Glasziou
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.21250961
Anna Mae Scott
1Bond University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Anna Mae Scott
  • For correspondence: ascott@bond.edu.au
Iain Chalmers
2Oxford University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Adrian Barnett
3Queensland University of Technology
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Alexandre Stephens
4University of Sydney
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Simon E. Kolstoe
5University of Portsmouth
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Justin Clark
1Bond University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Richard Matthews
1Bond University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paul Glasziou
1Bond University
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

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.

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted medRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. All rights reserved. No reuse allowed without permission.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 03, 2021.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about medRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Exempting low-risk health research from ethics reviews to better serve the interests of the patients and public: a qualitative analysis of survey responses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from medRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the medRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Exempting low-risk health research from ethics reviews to better serve the interests of the patients and public: a qualitative analysis of survey responses
Anna Mae Scott, Iain Chalmers, Adrian Barnett, Alexandre Stephens, Simon E. Kolstoe, Justin Clark, Richard Matthews, Paul Glasziou
medRxiv 2021.02.01.21250961; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.21250961
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Exempting low-risk health research from ethics reviews to better serve the interests of the patients and public: a qualitative analysis of survey responses
Anna Mae Scott, Iain Chalmers, Adrian Barnett, Alexandre Stephens, Simon E. Kolstoe, Justin Clark, Richard Matthews, Paul Glasziou
medRxiv 2021.02.01.21250961; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.02.01.21250961

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Medical Ethics
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Addiction Medicine (70)
  • Allergy and Immunology (168)
  • Anesthesia (49)
  • Cardiovascular Medicine (448)
  • Dentistry and Oral Medicine (80)
  • Dermatology (55)
  • Emergency Medicine (157)
  • Endocrinology (including Diabetes Mellitus and Metabolic Disease) (190)
  • Epidemiology (5214)
  • Forensic Medicine (3)
  • Gastroenterology (194)
  • Genetic and Genomic Medicine (749)
  • Geriatric Medicine (76)
  • Health Economics (212)
  • Health Informatics (694)
  • Health Policy (352)
  • Health Systems and Quality Improvement (222)
  • Hematology (98)
  • HIV/AIDS (162)
  • Infectious Diseases (except HIV/AIDS) (5814)
  • Intensive Care and Critical Care Medicine (356)
  • Medical Education (102)
  • Medical Ethics (25)
  • Nephrology (80)
  • Neurology (758)
  • Nursing (43)
  • Nutrition (129)
  • Obstetrics and Gynecology (141)
  • Occupational and Environmental Health (231)
  • Oncology (475)
  • Ophthalmology (149)
  • Orthopedics (38)
  • Otolaryngology (93)
  • Pain Medicine (39)
  • Palliative Medicine (19)
  • Pathology (139)
  • Pediatrics (223)
  • Pharmacology and Therapeutics (136)
  • Primary Care Research (96)
  • Psychiatry and Clinical Psychology (853)
  • Public and Global Health (1992)
  • Radiology and Imaging (343)
  • Rehabilitation Medicine and Physical Therapy (156)
  • Respiratory Medicine (283)
  • Rheumatology (93)
  • Sexual and Reproductive Health (72)
  • Sports Medicine (75)
  • Surgery (108)
  • Toxicology (25)
  • Transplantation (29)
  • Urology (39)