ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2011
Seeking ethical approval for an international study in primary care patient safety.
Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mental health problems of undocumented migrants in the Netherlands: A qualitative exploration of recognition, recording, and treatment by general practitioners.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2015Article
- Shortcomings of protocols of drug trials in relation to sponsorship as identified by Research Ethics Committees: analysis of comments raised during ethical review.BMC medical ethics · 2014Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Seeking ethics committee approval for research can be challenging even for relatively simple studies occurring in single settings. Complicating factors such as multicentre studies and/or contentious research issues can challenge review processes, and conducting such studies internationally adds a further layer of complexity. This paper draws on the experiences of the LINNAEUS Collaboration, an international group of primary care researchers, in obtaining ethics approval to conduct an international study investigating medical error in general practice in six countries. It describes the ethics review processes applied to exactly the same research protocol for a study run in Australia, Canada, England, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and the US. Wide variation in ethics review responses to the research proposal occurred, from no approval being deemed necessary to the study plan narrowly avoiding rejection. The authors' experiences demonstrated that ethics committees operate in their own historical and cultural context, which can lead to radically different subjective interpretations of commonly-held ethical principles, and raised further issues such as 'what is research?'. This first LINNAEUS study started when patient safety was a particularly sensitive subject. Although it is now a respectable area of inquiry, patient safety is still a topic that can excite emotions and prejudices. The LINNAEUS Collaboration now extends to more countries and continues to pursue an international research agenda, so reflection on the influences of history, social context, and structure of each country's ethical review processes is timely.
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.