“No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence”: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes

Abstract

We created a petition for a national inquiry into the Australian system of research ethics and governance, to inform the politicians about the problems with the existing system. We analyzed the reasons that signatories offered for why signing the petition was important to them. A total of 409 comments (by 805 signatories) focused on five major themes: (1) views on previous changes to the system of research ethics and governance; (2) drawbacks of the existing system; (3) suggested changes to the system; (4) anticipated impacts of changing the system; and (5) miscellaneous/other comments. Comments ranged from several words to over 400 words in length, and most often focused on the procedural aspects, and commented on theme 2: drawbacks of the existing system.

Keywords

research ethics governance site-specific approval research ethics committees low-risk research exemption health research medical research proportionate review

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abbott

Grady

(2011). A systematic review of the empirical literature evaluating IRBs: What we know and what we still need to learn. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 6(1), 3-19. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2011.6.1.3

Barnett

Byrne

J. A.

Scott

A. M.

Taylor

(2020). Ethics petition. Retrieved from https://osf.io/nf48c/.

Barnett

Campbell

M. J.

Shield

Farrington

Hall

Page

Graves

(2016). The high costs of getting ethical and site-specific approvals for multi-centre research. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 1(16). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-016-0023-6

Brandenburg

Thorning

Ruthenberg

(2021).What are the most common reasons for return of ethics submissions? An audit of an Australian health service ethics committee. Research Ethics, 17(3), 346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016121999935

Carroll

Freeman

(2016). Content analysis of comments posted on Australian online news sites reporting a celebrity admitting smoking while pregnant. Public Health Research & Practice, 26(5), e2651660. https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp2651660

Clay-Williams

Taylor

Braithwaite

(2018). Potential solutions to improve the governance of multicentre health services research. Medical Journal of Australia, 208(4), 152-154. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja16.01268 .

De Smit

Kearns

L. S.

Clarke

Dick

Hill

C. L.

Hewitt

A. W.

(2016). Heterogeneity of human research ethics committees and research governance offices across Australia: An observational study. The Australasian Medical Journal, 9(2), 33-39. https://doi.org/10.4066/AMJ.2015.2587

Duplancic

Crough

Bell

S. C.

(2019). Multi-centre ethics and research governance review can impede non-interventional clinical research. Internal Medical Journal, 49(6), 722-728. https://doi.org/10.1111/imj.14158

Duszynski

K. M.

Pratt

N. L.

Lynch

J. W.

Braunack-Mayer

Taylor

L. K.

Berry

J. G.

Gold

M. S.

(2019). Process trumps potential public good: Better vaccine safety through linked cross-jurisdictional immunisation data in Australia. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 43(5), 496-504. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12929

10.

Elo

Kyngäs

(2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107-115. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x

11.

Evans

Thornton

Chalmers

Glasziou

12.

Foot

Scott

I. A.

Russell

G. M.

Cottrell

Sturman

Freeman

C. R.

(2018). Ethics and site-specific governance approvals for multi-centre, inter-sector health care research. Medical Journal of Australia, 209(4), 175-176. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja17.01017

13.

Greville

Haynes

Kagie

Thompson

S. C.

(2019). It shouldn't be this hard': Exploring the challenges of rural health research. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(23), 4643. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16234643

14.

Guillemin

Gillam

Rosenthal

Bolitho

(2012). Human research ethics committees: Examining their roles and practices. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(3), 38-49. https://doi.org/10.1525/jer.2012.7.3.38

15.

Iversen

H. H.

Bjertnæs

O. A.

Skudal

K. E.

(2014). Patient evaluation of hospital outcomes: An analysis of open-ended comments from extreme clusters in a national survey. BMJ Open, 4(5), e004848-e004848. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004848

16.

Lynch

H. F.

Nicholls

Meyer

M. N.

Taylor

H. A.

(2019). Of parachutes and participant protection: Moving beyond quality to advance effective research ethics oversight. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 190-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618812625

17.

McGiffin

D. C.

Kure

C. E.

Hayward

C. S.

Fraser

J. F.

(2019). Ethics and governance is becoming unethical: Time for some common sense? ANZ Journal of Surgery, 89(12), 1538-1539. https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.15447

18.

Morse

A. R.

Forbes

Jones

B. A.

Gulliver

Banfield

(2019). Australian Mental health consumer and carer perspectives on ethics in adult mental health research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 234-242. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264619844396

19.

National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (2018). National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research 2007 (Updated 2018). Retrieved from https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/national-statement-ethical-conduct-human-research-2007-updated-2018.

20.

NHS Health Research Authority (2020). Governance arrangements for research ethics committees: 2020 edition. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/GAfREC_Final_v2.0_26.03.2020.pdf.

21.

NHS Health Research Authority (March 2021). Standard Operating Procedures for Research Ethics Committees: Version 7.5. Retrieved from https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/www.hra.nhs.uk/media/documents/RES_Standard_Operating_Procedures_Version_7.5_March_2021_Exported_from_pdf.pdf.

22.

Nicholls

S. G.

Hayes

T. P.

Brehaut

J. C.

McDonald

Weijer

Saginur

Fergusson

(2015). A scoping review of empirical research relating to quality and effectiveness of research ethics review. PloS One, 10(7), e0133639-e0133639. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133639

23.

Obermair

H. M.

Dodd

R. H.

Bonner

Jansen

McCaffery

(2018). ‘It has saved thousands of lives, so why change it?’ content analysis of objections to cervical screening programme changes in Australia. BMJ Open, 8(2), e019171. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019171

24.

O'Brien

B. C.

Harris

I. B.

Beckman

T. J.

Reed

D. A.

Cook

D. A.

(2014). Standards for reporting qualitative research: A synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine, 89(9), 1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/acm.0000000000000388

25.

Resnik

D. B.

(2015). Some reflections on evaluating institutional review board effectiveness. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, (Part B) 261-264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2015.09.018

26.

Rush

Ling

Carpenter

J. E.

Carter

Searles

Byrne

J. A.

(2018). Research governance review of a negligible-risk research project: Too much of a good thing? Research Ethics, 14(3), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1747016117739937

27.

Scott

A. M.

Chalmers

Barnett

Stephens

Kolstoe

S. E.

Clark

Glasziou

(2021). ‘The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': A survey of views on human research ethics reviews. Journal of Medical Ethics. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-106785

28.

Scott

A. M.

Kolstoe

Ploem

M. C.

Hammatt

Glasziou

(2020). Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: Comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0520-4

29.

Sumner

H. M.

McQueen

Scott

M. J.

Sumner

(2014). Analysis of comments in a petition defending electronic cigarettes. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 16(11), 1503-1511. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntu055

30.

Tsan

M. F.

(2019). Measuring the quality and performance of institutional review boards. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 14(3), 187-189. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618804686

31.

Vaismoradi

Turunen

Bondas

(2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405. https://doi.org/10.1111/nhs.12048

32.

Vajdic

C. M.

Meagher

N. S.

Hicks

S. C.

Faedo

Ward

R. L.

Pearson

S. A.

(2012). Governance approval for multisite, non-interventional research: What can harmonisation of multi-centre ethical review learn from the New South Wales experience? Internal Medical Journal, 42(2), 127-131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2011.02431.x

33.

Wynn

L. L.

Israel

Thomson

White

K. L.

Carey-White

(2014). A national survey of experiences with ethics review. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 25(3), 375-377. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/taja.12109_1

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB

3.65 MB