Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30630475›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Research ethics oversight in Norway: structure, function, and challenges.

R Froud, T J Meza, K O Ernes, A M Slowther

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

R FroudDepartment of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway. rob.froud@kristiania.no.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9193-2297
T J MezaDepartment of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.
K O ErnesDepartment of Management and Organization, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.
A M SlowtherWarwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Høyskolen Kristiania · NOUniversity of Warwick · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the development and evaluation of clinical ethics services in Norway has been recognized internationally, the country's research ethics infrastructure at times may have been less well developed. In 2016, media interest in the controversial nature of some health services research and pilot studies highlighted gaps in the system with certain types of research having no clear mechanisms through which they may be given due independent consideration. It is not clear that new legislation, implemented in 2017, will address this problem. We explore relevant law, committee scope, and the function of the system. We show that 1) Norwegian law provides for ethics assessment for all forms of health research; 2) regional RECs in Norway might not have always enforced this provision, considering some interventional health services research to be outside their remit; and 3) Norwegian law does not explicity provide for local/university RECs, meaning that, in practice, there may be no readily accessible mechanisms for the assessment of research that is excluded by regional RECs. This may include health services research, pilot studies, and undergraduate research. New 2017 legislation has no effect on this specifically but focuses on institutions regulating researcher activity. This may place researchers in the difficult situation of on one hand, needing to hold to recognized ethical standards, while on the other, not readily having access to independent committee scrutiny to facilitate consistent operation with these standards.

conclusionTo support researchers in Norway and to protect the public, it may be necessary either to widen the regional RECs' remit or to make legislative alterations that permit and do not discourage the existence of local RECs.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchAdultAgedClinical Trials as TopicDelivery of Health CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNorwayPilot ProjectsResearchResearch PersonnelClinical trialsEthicsHealth services researchUndergraduate research

Identifiers

PMID30630475
PMCPMC6327404
OpenAlexW2911693293

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.