Research governance and bureaucracy for multisite studies: implications for occupational therapy research

Whitehead, Phillip; Drummond, Avril; Fellows, Karen
July 2011
British Journal of Occupational Therapy;Jul2011, Vol. 74 Issue 7, p355
Academic Journal
Obtaining research governance approvals for research involving the National Health Service (NHS) has become increasingly complex. In order to obtain the necessary approvals to interview 20 occupational therapists from a range of locations across the United Kingdom, the authors had to submit lengthy applications to all 20 sites. Before issuing their approvals, some sites raised numerous queries, whilst others did not raise any. The time taken to obtain approvals ranged from 6 to 197 days. These disparities highlight that the current research governance procedure for multisite studies is complex and subject to local interpretations. This opinion piece argues that the procedure is excessive for research that does not involve patients and involves NHS staff only. It also argues that this is an injudicious use of resources at a time of national austerity. Implications for the future of occupational therapy research in the United Kingdom are discussed.


Related Articles

  • Groups finding common ground on Common Rule.  // IRB Advisor;Dec2011, Vol. 11 Issue 12, p129 

    No abstract available.

  • Neurology research network starts IRB review.  // IRB Advisor;Jun2012, Vol. 12 Issue 6, p66 

    The article discusses NeuroNEXT, a network developed by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Strokes (NINDS). The network coordinates institutional review board (IRB) reviews for institutions across the country in order to conduct trails of neurological therapies. It explains how...

  • CNE/CME QUESTIONS.  // IRB Advisor;8/1/2012, p96 

    A quiz on CNE/CME questions regarding enrollment informed consent comprehension, IRB's option of conducting local reviews of the study and the only socioeconomic or demographic factor that remained an independent predictor of clinical trial participation is presented.

  • Adaptive design: Points to consider.  // IRB Advisor;Jul2010, Vol. 10 Issue 7, p80 

    The article discusses the aspects to be considered in the use of adaptive design. Several issues concerning the Institutional Review Board (IRB) which can be affected by adaptive design are cited, which include informed consent of research participants and the misconceptions on the difference...

  • Nanomedicine First-in-Human Research: Challenges for Informed Consent. King, Nancy M. P. // Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics;Winter2012, Vol. 40 Issue 4, p823 

    Risks of harm, translational uncertainty, ambiguities in potential direct benefit, and long-term follow-up merit consideration in first-in-human research. Some nanomedical technologies have additional characteristics that should be addressed, including: defining and describing nanomedical...

  • Texas A&M IC information sheet template.  // IRB Advisor;Aug2013, Vol. 13 Issue 8, p91 

    The article presents the Texas A&M University's informed consent (IC) information sheet template. Questions included in the information sheet include why the study is being done, what the alternatives are to being in this study and whether the information from the study will be kept private. It...

  • ANNOTATIONS.  // IRB: Ethics & Human Research;May/Jun2014, Vol. 36 Issue 3, p19 

    The article discusses research on medical ethics. It discusses the studies "Mindsets, informed consent, and research," by L. A. Jansen, published in a 2014 issue of " Hastings Center Report", "How U.S. institutional review boards decide when researchers need to translate studies," by R. Klitzman...

  • Seeking genetic review common ground.  // IRB Advisor;Jul2011, Vol. 11 Issue 7, p78 

    The article discusses key findings of a survey of genetic researchers and IRB professionals as a part of Genetic Research Review and Issues Project (GRRIP) to examine their attitudes about genetic research. The survey concluded that while both groups reported dealing with the same set of issues,...

  • Outsourcing Ethical Obligations: Should the Revised Common Rule Address the Responsibilities of Investigators and Sponsors? Shah, Seema K. // Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics;Summer2013, Vol. 41 Issue 2, p397 

    The Common Rule creates a division of moral labor in research. It implies that investigators and sponsors can outsource their ethical obligations to IRBs and participants, thereby fostering a culture of compliance, rather than one of responsibility. The proposed revisions to the Common Rule are...


Read the Article


Sorry, but this item is not currently available from your library.

Try another library?
Sign out of this library

Other Topics