Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17470931›Full record

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.

Tara Kielmann, Alison Tierney, Rosemary Porteous, Guro Huby, Aziz Sheikh, Hilary Pinnock

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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 · 2011
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Health researchers' attitudes towards public involvement in health research.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2009
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Regulation and the social licence for medical research.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2008
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Bypassing bureaucracy to answer important questions quickly.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2008
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tara KielmannDivision of Community Health Sciences, GP Section, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH8 9DX, UK. tara.kielmann@ed.ac.uk
Alison Tierney
Rosemary Porteous
Guro Huby
Aziz Sheikh
Hilary Pinnock

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AccreditationBiomedical ResearchEnglandEthics, ResearchGovernment AgenciesMulticenter Studies as TopicPrimary Health CareTime FactorsWales

Identifiers

PMID17470931
PMCPMC1861420

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.