A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Study explanatory forms often state that an ethics committee has approved a research project. To determine whether the lay community understand the roles of ethics committees in research, we took a cross-sectional national sample from three sampling frames: the general population (n=1532); cohort study participants (n=397); and case-control study participants (n=151). About half (51.3 ) of the participants had heard of ethics committees. Those who had were more likely to be those who had participated in previous surveys, older participants, those born in Australia and those with higher education. Almost all participants agreed that the roles of an ethics committee were to protect participants privacy and ensure no harm came to study participants and most agreed that the committee s role was to ensure that the research was capable of providing answers. Case-control and cohort participants were more likely than the general population to consider that the role of an ethics committee was to design the research and obtain research funding. Overall, we found that about half of the population are aware of ethics committees and that most could correctly identify that ethics committees are there to protect the welfare and rights of research participants, although a substantial minority had some incorrect beliefs about the committees roles. Increased education, particularly for migrants and older people, might improve understanding of the role of ethics committees in research.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)545 - 548
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Volume41
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this

@article{d091ba109c024504a041356ac9e1ee94,
title = "A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees",
abstract = "Study explanatory forms often state that an ethics committee has approved a research project. To determine whether the lay community understand the roles of ethics committees in research, we took a cross-sectional national sample from three sampling frames: the general population (n=1532); cohort study participants (n=397); and case-control study participants (n=151). About half (51.3 ) of the participants had heard of ethics committees. Those who had were more likely to be those who had participated in previous surveys, older participants, those born in Australia and those with higher education. Almost all participants agreed that the roles of an ethics committee were to protect participants privacy and ensure no harm came to study participants and most agreed that the committee s role was to ensure that the research was capable of providing answers. Case-control and cohort participants were more likely than the general population to consider that the role of an ethics committee was to design the research and obtain research funding. Overall, we found that about half of the population are aware of ethics committees and that most could correctly identify that ethics committees are there to protect the welfare and rights of research participants, although a substantial minority had some incorrect beliefs about the committees roles. Increased education, particularly for migrants and older people, might improve understanding of the role of ethics committees in research.",
author = "Lin Fritschi and Kelsall, {Helen L} and Beatrice Loff and Slegers, {Claudia Marie} and Zion, {Deborah Ruth} and Glass, {Deborah Catherine}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1136/medethics-2013-101613",
language = "English",
volume = "41",
pages = "545 -- 548",
journal = "Journal of Medical Ethics",
issn = "0306-6800",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",
number = "7",

}

A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees. / Fritschi, Lin; Kelsall, Helen L; Loff, Beatrice; Slegers, Claudia Marie; Zion, Deborah Ruth; Glass, Deborah Catherine.

In: Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 41, No. 7, 2015, p. 545 - 548.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - A cross-sectional survey to investigate community understanding of medical research ethics committees

AU - Fritschi, Lin

AU - Kelsall, Helen L

AU - Loff, Beatrice

AU - Slegers, Claudia Marie

AU - Zion, Deborah Ruth

AU - Glass, Deborah Catherine

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Study explanatory forms often state that an ethics committee has approved a research project. To determine whether the lay community understand the roles of ethics committees in research, we took a cross-sectional national sample from three sampling frames: the general population (n=1532); cohort study participants (n=397); and case-control study participants (n=151). About half (51.3 ) of the participants had heard of ethics committees. Those who had were more likely to be those who had participated in previous surveys, older participants, those born in Australia and those with higher education. Almost all participants agreed that the roles of an ethics committee were to protect participants privacy and ensure no harm came to study participants and most agreed that the committee s role was to ensure that the research was capable of providing answers. Case-control and cohort participants were more likely than the general population to consider that the role of an ethics committee was to design the research and obtain research funding. Overall, we found that about half of the population are aware of ethics committees and that most could correctly identify that ethics committees are there to protect the welfare and rights of research participants, although a substantial minority had some incorrect beliefs about the committees roles. Increased education, particularly for migrants and older people, might improve understanding of the role of ethics committees in research.

AB - Study explanatory forms often state that an ethics committee has approved a research project. To determine whether the lay community understand the roles of ethics committees in research, we took a cross-sectional national sample from three sampling frames: the general population (n=1532); cohort study participants (n=397); and case-control study participants (n=151). About half (51.3 ) of the participants had heard of ethics committees. Those who had were more likely to be those who had participated in previous surveys, older participants, those born in Australia and those with higher education. Almost all participants agreed that the roles of an ethics committee were to protect participants privacy and ensure no harm came to study participants and most agreed that the committee s role was to ensure that the research was capable of providing answers. Case-control and cohort participants were more likely than the general population to consider that the role of an ethics committee was to design the research and obtain research funding. Overall, we found that about half of the population are aware of ethics committees and that most could correctly identify that ethics committees are there to protect the welfare and rights of research participants, although a substantial minority had some incorrect beliefs about the committees roles. Increased education, particularly for migrants and older people, might improve understanding of the role of ethics committees in research.

UR - http://jme.bmj.com/content/41/7/545.full.pdf+html

U2 - 10.1136/medethics-2013-101613

DO - 10.1136/medethics-2013-101613

M3 - Article

VL - 41

SP - 545

EP - 548

JO - Journal of Medical Ethics

JF - Journal of Medical Ethics

SN - 0306-6800

IS - 7

ER -