Researchers have longstanding concerns about the logistical and administrative burdens posed by ethics review of multisite studies involving human participants.
Centralised ethics review, in which approval by one committee has authority across multiple sites, is widely touted as a strategy for streamlining the process. The Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER) project is currently developing such a system for Australia.
It is unclear how centralised review will work for multisite Indigenous health research, where the views of local stakeholders are important and community consultation is mandatory.
Our recent experience in conducting the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey (NIEHS) shows how elaborate the current ethics approval and community consultation processes can be, and points to several lessons and ideas to guide pending reforms.
- 1. Weeramanthri T, Currie BJ. Isn’t one institutional ethics committee’s approval enough? Med J Aust 1994; 161: 398-399.
- 2. Banscott Health Consulting. Report of the review of access to unapproved therapeutic goods. Canberra: Therapeutic Goods Administration, 2005. http://www.tga.gov.au/consult/2005/cltrialrevrep.pdf (accessed Jun 2009).
- 3. Jamrozik K, Kolybaba M. Are ethics committees retarding the improvement of health services in Australia? Med J Aust 1999; 170: 26-28. <MJA full text>
- 4. Gold JL, Dewa CS. Institutional review boards and multisite studies in health services research: is there a better way? Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 291-308.
- 5. Christian MC, Goldberg JL, Killen J, et al. A central institutional review board for multi institutional trials. N Engl J Med 2002; 346: 1405-1408.
- 6. Dziak K, Anderson R, Sevick MA, et al. Variations among institutional review board reviews in a multisite health services research study. Health Serv Res 2005; 40: 279-290.
- 7. Vick CC, Finan KR, Kiefe C, et al. Variation in institutional review processes for a multisite observational study. Am J Surg 2005; 190: 805-809.
- 8. Green LA, Lowery JC, Kowalski CP, Wyszewianski L. Impact of institutional review board practice variation on observational health services research. Health Serv Res 2006; 41: 214-231.
- 9. Larson E, Bratts T, Zwanziger J, Stone P. A survey of IRB process in 68 US hospitals. J Nurs Scholarsh 2004; 36: 260-265.
- 10. Dyrbye LN, Thomas MR, Mechaber AJ, et al. Medical education research and IRB review: an analysis and comparison of the IRB review process at six institutions. Acad Med 2007; 82: 654-660.
- 11. Silverman H, Hull SC, Sugarman J. Variability among institutional review boards’ decisions within the context of a multicenter trial. Crit Care Med 2001; 29: 235-241.
- 12. Burman W, Breese P, Weis S, et al. The effects of a local review on informed consent documents from a multicenter clinical trials consortium. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24: 245-255.
- 13. McWilliams R, Hoover-Fong J, Hamosh A, et al. Problematic variation in local institutional review of a multicenter genetic epidemiology study. JAMA 2003; 290: 360-366.
- 14. Al-Shahi Salman R, Brock TM, Dennis MS, et al. Research governance impediments to clinical trials: a retrospective survey. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 101-104.
- 15. Ah-See KW, Mackenzie J, Thakker NS, Maran AGD. Local research ethics committee approval for a national study in Scotland. J R Coll Surg Edinb 1998; 43: 303-305.
- 16. Middle C, Johnson A, Petty T, et al. Ethics approval for a national postal survey: recent experience. BMJ 1995; 311: 659-660.
- 17. Jenkin R, Bennett J, Frommer M, Madronio C. A streamlined national approach to scientific and ethics review of multi-centre health and medical research in Australia: issues and options, 2006. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/hrecs/A_streamlined_national_approach_to%20scientific_and_ethics_reviewvof%20multi-centre_health_and_medical_research_in_Australia.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 18. National Health and Medical Research Council. Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER) enabling system: proposed national approach for the adoption of a single ethical and scientific review for multi-centre health and medical human research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2008. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/homer/consultation/homer-consultation-complete.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 19. National Health and Medical Research Council. Values and ethics: guidelines for ethical conduct in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2003. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/health_ethics/human/conduct/guidelines/e52.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 20. Anderson I. Ethics and health research in Aboriginal communities. In: Daly J, editor. Ethical intersections: health research, methods and researcher responsibility. Sydney: Allen and Unwin, 1996.
- 21. Griew RM, McAulley D. Review of the interim guidelines on ethical matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health: background paper. Canberra: Australian Health Ethics Committee, 2001.
- 22. Anderson I, Griew R, McAullay D. Ethics guidelines, health research and Indigenous Australians. N Z Bioeth J 2003; 4: 20-29.
- 23. Humphery K. The development of the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines on ethical matters in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health research: a brief documentary and oral history. Melbourne: VicHealth Koori Health Research and Community Development Unit, University of Melbourne, 2003. (Discussion Paper No. 8.)
- 24. National Indigenous Eye Health Survey Team. National Indigenous Eye Health Survey: full report. Melbourne: University of Melbourne, 2009. http://www.cera.org.au/publications/reports/091012%20NIEHS %20Final%20Report%20V2_0d.pdf (accessed Jan 2010).
- 25. Central Office for Research Ethics Committees. Governance arrangements for NHS research ethics committees. London: COREC, 2001. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_4005727 (accessed Jun 2009).
- 26. Dunn NR, Arscott A, Mann RD. Costs of seeking ethics approval before and after the introduction of multicenter research ethics committees. J Roy Soc Med 2000; 93: 511-512.
- 27. Tully J, Ninis N, Booy R, Viner R. The new system of review by multicenter research ethics committees: Prospective study. BMJ 2000; 320: 1179-1182.
- 28. Al-Shahi R. Research ethics committees in the UK — the pressure is now on research and development departments. J Roy Soc Med 2005; 98: 444-447.
- 29. National Health and Medical Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research. Canberra: NHMRC, 2007. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e72syn.htm (accessed Jun 2009).
- 30. National Health and Medical Research Council. Keeping research on track: a guide for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples about health research ethics. Canberra: NHMRC, 2005. http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/e65.pdf (accessed Jun 2009).
- 31. Taylor HR, Fox SS. Ethical hurdles in Indigenous research. Aust N Z J Public Health 2008; 32: 489-490.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.