Human research ethics committees members: Ethical review personal perceptions

Boris Handal; Chris Campbell; Kevin Watson; Marguerite Maher; Keagan Brewer; Anne-Marie Irwin; Marc Fellman

doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8

Human research ethics committees members: Ethical review personal perceptions

Boris Handal, Chris Campbell, Kevin Watson, Marguerite Maher, Keagan Brewer, Anne-Marie Irwin, Marc Fellman

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members’ perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants’ risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members’ beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants’ welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	94-114
Number of pages	21
Journal	Monash Bioethics Review
Volume	39
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8
Publication status	Published - 25 Jun 2021

Access to Document

10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8

Cite this

@article{356b0f3117544a38aa768c0fcb87a046,

title = "Human research ethics committees members: Ethical review personal perceptions",

abstract = "This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members{\textquoteright} perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants{\textquoteright} risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members{\textquoteright} beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants{\textquoteright} welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.",

keywords = "Ethics, Review, HREC, Research, Perceptions",

author = "Boris Handal and Chris Campbell and Kevin Watson and Marguerite Maher and Keagan Brewer and Anne-Marie Irwin and Marc Fellman",

note = "Includes bibliographical references",

year = "2021",

month = jun,

day = "25",

doi = "10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8",

language = "English",

volume = "39",

pages = "94--114",

journal = "Monash Bioethics Review",

issn = "1321-2753",

publisher = "Monash University Publishing",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Human research ethics committees members

T2 - Ethical review personal perceptions

AU - Handal, Boris

AU - Campbell, Chris

AU - Watson, Kevin

AU - Maher, Marguerite

AU - Brewer, Keagan

AU - Irwin, Anne-Marie

AU - Fellman, Marc

N1 - Includes bibliographical references

PY - 2021/6/25

Y1 - 2021/6/25

N2 - This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members’ perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants’ risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members’ beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants’ welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.

AB - This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members’ perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants’ risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members’ beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants’ welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed.

KW - Ethics

KW - Review

KW - HREC

KW - Research

KW - Perceptions

U2 - 10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8

DO - 10.1007/s40592-021-00130-8

M3 - Article

C2 - 34170483

SN - 1321-2753

VL - 39

SP - 94

EP - 114

JO - Monash Bioethics Review

JF - Monash Bioethics Review

IS - 1

ER -

Human research ethics committees members: Ethical review personal perceptions

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this