ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2007
The Department of Health's research governance framework remains an impediment to multi-centre studies: findings from a national descriptive study.
Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- From awareness to involvement? A qualitative study of respiratory patients' awareness of health service change.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2011Article
- Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- One stop or full stop? The continuing challenges for researchers despite the new streamlined NHS research governance process.BMC health services research · 2010Article
- How the NHS research governance procedures could be modified to greatly strengthen clinical research.Clinical medicine (London, England) · 2010Article
- Is multidisciplinary teamwork the key? A qualitative study of the development of respiratory services in the UK.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2009Article
- Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2009Article
- Mind the gap between policy imperatives and service provision: a qualitative study of the process of respiratory service development in England and Wales.BMC health services research · 2008Article
- Regulation and the social licence for medical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008Article
- Setting up non-commercial clinical trials takes too long in the UK: findings from a prospective study.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
- Bypassing bureaucracy to answer important questions quickly.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe describe our experience of using the standard application form, designed to streamline applications for multi-centre research, to seek approval from all primary care organizations (PCOs) in England and Wales to undertake a single telephone interview with a health service manager.
designWe sent applications (n=316), by email to each PCO, or consortium of PCOs, attaching a completed standard application form, the 15 required documents, and the approval we had been granted by the lead NHS organization. We maintained detailed records of the responses to our application, subsequent correspondence, additional paperwork requested, and time spent on the approval process.
settingThe UK Research Governance Framework, which regulates all research conducted in health and social care settings.
participantsAll PCOs in England and Wales.
interventionsNone.
main outcome measuresTime taken to obtain approval to undertake a telephone interview with a health service manager.
resultsWe were unable to establish contact with 13 (4%) PCOs. Six months after submitting our application we had received approval from 259/316 (82%) PCOs and were still awaiting a verdict from 41 (13%). The median time to approval was 56 days (IQR 42-72). Overall, an estimated 318 staff-hours were spent completing supplementary forms, providing additional information and chasing up dormant applications.
conclusionsRecent initiatives to 'streamline' research governance approval have failed to address the problems that face researchers undertaking multi-centre studies. There is an urgent need to develop a simpler process that allows low risk research to take place without threatening staff morale and endangering the quality of the research outputs. In the meantime, we advise researchers to allow far greater time than might reasonably be envisioned to obtain research governance approval.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.