Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2022-2
“No Country Bureaucratised its way to Excellence”: A Content Analysis of Comments on a Petition to Streamline Australian Research Ethics and Governance Processes
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.
AbbottL.GradyC. (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
2.
BarnettA.ByrneJ. A.ScottA. M.TaylorN. (2020). Ethics petition. Retrieved from https://osf.io/nf48c/.
3.
BarnettA.CampbellM. J.ShieldC.FarringtonA.HallL.PageK.GravesN. (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
4.
BrandenburgC.ThorningS.RuthenbergC. (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
5.
CarrollB.FreemanB. (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
6.
Clay-WilliamsR.TaylorN.BraithwaiteJ. (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.
7.
De SmitE.KearnsL. S.ClarkeL.DickJ.HillC. L.HewittA. 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
8.
DuplancicC.CroughT.BellS. 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
9.
DuszynskiK. M.PrattN. L.LynchJ. W.Braunack-MayerA.TaylorL. K.BerryJ. G.GoldM. 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
FootH.ScottI. A.RussellG. M.CottrellN.SturmanN.FreemanC. 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.
GrevilleH.HaynesE.KagieR.ThompsonS. 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.
GuilleminM.GillamL.RosenthalD.BolithoA. (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.
IversenH. H.BjertnæsO. A.SkudalK. 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.
LynchH. F.NichollsS.MeyerM. N.TaylorH. 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.
McGiffinD. C.KureC. E.HaywardC. S.FraserJ. 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.
MorseA. R.ForbesO.JonesB. A.GulliverA.BanfieldM. (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.
NichollsS. G.HayesT. P.BrehautJ. C.McDonaldM.WeijerC.SaginurR.FergussonD. (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.
ObermairH. M.DoddR. H.BonnerC.JansenJ.McCafferyK. (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'BrienB. C.HarrisI. B.BeckmanT. J.ReedD. A.CookD. 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.
ResnikD. 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.
RushA.LingR.CarpenterJ. E.CarterC.SearlesA.ByrneJ. 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.
ScottA. M.ChalmersI.BarnettA.StephensA.KolstoeS. E.ClarkJ.GlasziouP. (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.
ScottA. M.KolstoeS.PloemM. C.HammattZ.GlasziouP. (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.
SumnerH. M.McQueenA.ScottM. J.SumnerW. (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.
TsanM. 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.
VaismoradiM.TurunenH.BondasT. (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.
VajdicC. M.MeagherN. S.HicksS. C.FaedoM.WardR. L.PearsonS. 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.
WynnL. L.IsraelM.ThomsonC.WhiteK. L.Carey-WhiteL. (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.
