BMJ  2004;328:140-141 (17 January), doi:10.1136/bmj.328.7432.140

Paper

Comparison of requirements of research ethics committees in 11 European countries for a non-invasive interventional study

¹ Centre for Primary Health Care Studies, Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL Hilary.Hearnshaw{at}Warwick.ac.uk

Introduction

The Declaration of Helsinki states that every experimental procedure involving human subjects should be approved by a research ethics committee.¹ All signatory countries must enact the declaration but can also add local requirements which do not reduce the protection. Research ethics committees are well established, though they have been criticised.²

I aimed to describe how countries vary in their requirements for research ethics committees for exactly the same trial protocol. The study was nested within a trial, in 11 signatory countries, of a leaflet intervention aimed at improving the involvement of older patients during consultations with their general practitioners. The trial outcome measures were questionnaires for the general practitioners and their patients before and after the intervention. The documents relevant to research ethics committees comprised the letter of invitation, information leaflet, and questionnaires for patients (patient's pack); the similar, but different general practitioner's pack; and the intervention consultation leaflet.

Participants, methods, and results

I piloted a questionnaire, based on experiences in previous multinational studies,³ and then sent it to the researcher in each country (see bmj.com). The questionnaire asked for details of processes in getting approval from research ethics committees for the trial. I received responses from all partners—Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom (table).

View this table: [in this window] [in a new window]   Responses to questions on obtaining approval from research ethics committees in different countries

 

In Belgium, application was made to one research ethics committee. In Slovenia, the application also needed the protocol in English. In the United Kingdom, the 20 copies of the application needed all documents. Changes to the UK patient invitation letter required by the committee were resubmitted for chair's approval. The whole process took 10 weeks.

In all countries where researchers made applications, in addition to office costs, the researcher's time was used to prepare the application. This was two days in Slovenia and five days in the United Kingdom. In Israel, although approval of the research ethics committee was not needed, one day of researcher's time was taken in discovering this.

Comment

Countries clearly differ in their requirements for approval by a research ethics committee for an identical study. If all countries are meeting the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki, then the striking variations mean we are too careful in some countries or too lax in others. The United Kingdom has an arduous process for gaining ethical approval for a non-invasive intervention study.

The risks of inappropriate requirements include unnecessarily delayed studies and extra costs without any increased protection for participants. Disintegration of study protocols is also a high risk, and, therefore, UK partners may be unwelcome in international studies.

In countries where researchers do not apply for approval of a research ethics committee they are not being unethical. In the Netherlands, guidelines distinguish between studies where approval is and is not necessary.⁴ Not all medical research needs all the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki—for example, research that requires only answering questions, without risk of psychological distress.⁵ The sooner this concept is implemented by committeees in all countries, the sooner we can stop unnecessary applications which are both risky and costly.

---

Editorial by Glasziou and Chalmers

The questionnaire completed by researchers is on www.bmj.com

I thank the research partners from the IMPROVE project who completed the survey questionnaire. I also thank the referee of the first version.

Contributors: HH is the sole contributor to this paper.

Funding: This study was not funded. The study for which the research ethics approvals were investigated—the IMPROVE project—was funded by the European Commission.

Competing interests: HH is an active researcher who has applied for, and will continue to apply for, the approval of research ethics committees in the United Kingdom for studies she leads.

Ethical approval: Not needed.

References

1. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ferney-Voltaire: WMA, 2002. www.wma.net/e/policy/b3.htm (accessed 16 Oct 2003).
2. Maskell NA, Jones EL, Davies RJO. Variations in experience in obtaining local ethical approval for participation in a multi-centre study. Q J Med 2003;96: 305-7.
3. Grol R, Wensing M, Mainz J, Jung H-P, Ferreira P, Hearnshaw HM, et al. Patients in Europe evaluate general practice care: an international comparison. Br J Gen Pract 2000;50: 882-7.[Medline]
4. Centrale Commissie Mensgebonden Onderzoek. www.ccmo.nl
5. Doll R. What are the effects of the fifth revision of the Declaration of Helsinki: research will be impeded. BMJ 2001;323: 1421-2.[CrossRef]

(Accepted 4 September 2003)

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Reforming research ethics committees

Richard E Ashcroft, Ainsley J Newson, and Piers M W Benn
BMJ 2005 331: 587-588. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Ethics review in research: Research governance also delays research

David J Torgerson and Jo C Dumville
BMJ 2004 328: 710. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics review in research: Role of ethics committee review is interpreted widely

Ian L P Beales
BMJ 2004 328: 710. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics review in research: Ethics committees are risk averse

Helen J Minnis
BMJ 2004 328: 710-711. [Extract] [Full Text]

Ethics review roulette: what can we learn?

Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers
BMJ 2004 328: 121-122. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Willison, D J, Emerson, C, Szala-Meneok, K V, Gibson, E, Schwartz, L, Weisbaum, K M, Fournier, F, Brazil, K, Coughlin, M D (2008). Access to medical records for research purposes: varying perceptions across research ethics boards. J. Med. Ethics 34: 308-314 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Larkin, P. J, de Casterle, B. D., Schotsmans, P. (2008). A Relational Ethical Dialogue With Research Ethics Committees. Nurs Ethics 15: 234-242 [Abstract]  
• Masterton, G., Shah, P. (2007). How to approach a research ethics committee. Adv. Psychiatr. Treat. 13: 220-227 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Macduff, C., McKie, A., Martindale, S., Rennie, A. M., West, B., Wilcock, S. (2007). A Novel Framework for Reflecting on the Functioning of Research Ethics Review Panels. Nurs Ethics 14: 99-116 [Abstract]  
• Shaw, S., Barrett, G. (2006). Research governance: regulating risk and reducing harm?. JRSM 99: 14-19 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Al-Shahi, R. (2005). Research ethics committees in the UK--the pressure is now on research and development departments. JRSM 98: 444-447 [Full text]  
• Ashcroft, R. E, Newson, A. J, Benn, P. M W (2005). Reforming research ethics committees. BMJ 331: 587-588 [Full text]  
• Kerrison, S, Pollock, A M (2005). The reform of UK research ethics committees: throwing the baby out with the bath water?. J. Med. Ethics 31: 487-489 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Senok, A., Wilson, P., Reid, M., Scoular, A., Craig, N., McConnachie, A., Fitzpatrick, B., MacDonald, A. (2005). Can we evaluate population screening strategies in UK general practice? A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing postal and opportunistic screening for genital chlamydial infection. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 59: 198-204 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Luther, F. (2004). Evolution and survival of the fittest. J. Orthod. 31: 167-168 [Full text]  
• Torgerson, D. J, Dumville, J. C (2004). Ethics review in research: Research governance also delays research. BMJ 328: 710-710 [Full text]  
• Beales, I. L P (2004). Ethics review in research: Role of ethics committee review is interpreted widely. BMJ 328: 710-710 [Full text]  
• Minnis, H. J (2004). Ethics review in research: Ethics committees are risk averse. BMJ 328: 710-711 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Research governance also delays research

David J Torgerson, et al.
bmj.com, 16 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Ethics procedure needs to mature

A. Otto Quartero
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2004 [Full text]

Irregular application of ethical committee review

Ian L.P. Beales
bmj.com, 26 Jan 2004 [Full text]

"Ethics" committees or "governance" committees?

Robert V. Carlson, et al.
bmj.com, 28 Jan 2004 [Full text]