How do we know ethics committees work?
Countries pour resources into RECs, but quality assurance has been nearly silent on outcomes, so we may have processes without real protections for participants or communities.
Source
How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review
What they did
The authors note investment in institutional and governmental RECs, contrast health-care quality assessment with the silence around ethics practices, and call outcomes an area ripe for research.
What they found
Process can fail to yield real protections. Applying quality-assessment techniques to ethics practices has been neglected. Without evaluation systems, we do not know committees are ‘really working’.
The limits
What it doesn't show
This is a conceptual/policy argument, not a new audit of a named REC. It does not offer a full outcome metric.
Key terms
- REC
- Research ethics committee reviewing proposed research with human participants.
- Process without protection
- Ethics machinery that does not result in real protections for participants or communities.
- Outcomes assessment
- Asking whether REC activity actually improves protection, not only whether forms were filed.
- Quality assurance
- Techniques used in other health-care areas but nearly silent in ethics practice.
Flashcards
Research intelligence for this paper
See its role on concept claims, tensions it is part of, placement history, and related discoveries.
Quiz yourself
The neglected piece is?
Common questions
What is neglected?
Outcomes assessment of whether RECs actually protect people.
Investment problem?
Resources create committees whose processes may not yield real protections.
Comparator?
Quality assurance in other areas of health care.
More on Research ethics