RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Exempting low-risk health research from ethics reviews to better serve the interests of the patients and public: a qualitative analysis of survey responses
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.02.01.21250961
DO 10.1101/2021.02.01.21250961
A1 Scott, Anna Mae
A1 Chalmers, Iain
A1 Barnett, Adrian
A1 Stephens, Alexandre
A1 Kolstoe, Simon E.
A1 Clark, Justin
A1 Matthews, Richard
A1 Glasziou, Paul
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/02/03/2021.02.01.21250961.abstract
AB 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 StatementAMS, 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 StatementNo funding was obtained to conduct this work.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI 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.YesDeidentified data will be available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author.