Research governance as a facilitator for ethical and timely research? Learning from the experience of a large government-funded multisite research project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective The processes of research ethics and research governance are core to the conduct of research in health. Each aims to facilitate research that is both ethical and practical in order to produce new knowledge about the health system and improve the lives of those who use it. However, our experience has demonstrated that the process of obtaining ethical approval for a low-risk and low-resource research project was severely confounded by the multiple layers of research governance in operation at hospitals in Queensland (Qld) and New South Wales (NSW). Methods We analysed our own experience of gaining research governance approval with the aim of improving governance processes for multicentre research projects. Our project aimed to interview and survey one person at each of 57 hospitals in NSW and 18 in Qld. We recorded and compared the steps, documents and time-frame related to research governance approval at each of these research sites. Results We found that the progress of our project was significantly impeded by the multiple steps related to research governance processes in hospitals. Research governance approval took an average of 160 days in NSW and 316 in Qld. There was inconsistency between hospitals regarding documentation and significant duplication of documentation already approved through ethical review processes. The necessity for separate research contracts for all Qld research sites also added to research delays. Conclusion Based on our experiences we make recommendations about changes to research governance including clarification of responsibility, reform of areas of duplication and inconsistency, time limitations for approval and, in Qld, reform of financial and legal oversight. What is known about the topic? The implementation of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research in 2007 has resulted in a restructuring that separates out ethics approval from research governance approval. Although in most jurisdictions single ethical review for multicentre sites has been implemented effectively as a result of these reforms, research governance approval still needs to be obtained for each separate research site. What does this paper add? The research governance approval experiences of one large-scale, ethically low-risk research project are discussed in order to draw attention to the problems associated with the disparate and time-consuming research governance processes operating as a result of this system. What are the implications for practitioners? Policy makers and research governance administrators need to urgently address the significant problems caused by the delays and inconsistencies involved in gaining approval for research conducted in public hospitals. Researchers and those working within university ethics offices who provide support for research need to be aware of the problems associated with research governance and factor this into their decisions about research budgeting and timeframes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,161 | 0,273 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,015 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».