Abstract
Background We conducted a survey to identify what types of health/medical research could be exempt from research ethics reviews in Australia.
Methods We surveyed Australian health/medical researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members. The survey asked whether respondents had previously changed or abandoned a project anticipating difficulties obtaining ethics approval, and presented 8 research scenarios, asking whether these scenarios should or should not be exempt from ethics review, and to provide (optional) comments. Qualitative data were analysed thematically; quantitative data in R.
Results We received 514 responses. Forty-three percent of respondents to whom the question applied, reported changing projects in anticipation of obstacles from the ethics review process; 25% reported abandoning projects for this reason. Research scenarios asking professional staff to provide views in their area of expertise were most commonly exempted from ethics review (to prioritise systematic review topics 84%, on software strengths/weaknesses 85%); scenarios involving surplus samples (82%) and N-of-1 (single case) studies (76%) were most commonly required to undergo ethics review. HREC members were 26% more likely than researchers to require ethics review. Need for independent oversight, and low risk, were most frequently cited in support of decisions to require or exempt from ethics review, respectively.
Conclusions Considerable differences exist between researchers and HREC members, about when to exempt from review the research that ultimately serves the interests of patients and the public. It is widely accepted that evaluative research should be used to reduce clinical uncertainties – the same principle should apply to ethics reviews.
Competing Interest Statement
AMS, IC, AS, JC, 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.
Clinical Trial
Not applicable
Funding Statement
This work was not funded.
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 provided approval for 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
Footnotes
We have reworded the abstract to make it easier for readers to follow, and clarified that 43% of respondents reporting changes and 25% reporting abandoning projects were percentages of *valid* responses. We rephrased the introduction section for flow and neutrality. We removed the box with the scenarios, and moved each abbreviated scenario description to its corresponding results section. “N of 1 trials” was renamed “N of 1 (single case) studies" for clarity.
Data Availability
Deidentified data will be available upon reasonable request from the corresponding author
