Objectives: The performance of NHS Research Ethics Committees (RECs) is of growing interest. It has been proposed that they confine themselves to "ethical" issues only, and not concern themselves with the quality of the science. We aimed to identify current practices of RECs in relation to scientific issues in research ethics applications. Results: "Scientific issues" were raised in 104 (74%) of the 141 letters in our sample. Our data suggest that RECs frequently considered scientific issues and that judgements of these often informed their decisions about approval of applications. Current processes of peer review seemed insufficient to reassure RECs about the scientific quality of applications they were asked to review. Conclusions:Our study provides evidence that these issues are frequently raised in letters to researchers, and are often considered a quality problem by RECs. We reflect on how far issues of science can and should be distinguished from those of ethics, and on the policy implications.3

BackgroundOver one million children receive treatment for asthma in the UK. South Asian children experience excess morbidity and higher rates of hospitalization than the White population. This study aimed to explore perceptions and experiences of asthma and asthma management in British South Asian and White British families, to identify barriers to optimal management and to inform culturally appropriate interventions to improve management.MethodsA qualitative methodology, using semi-structured interviews was adopted. Members of 30 families from six major South Asian ethnic-religious groups were purposively sampled (n = 49). For comparison, 17 White British parents were interviewed. Topics included understandings of asthma; day-to-day management; interactions with health care providers and the perceived quality of healthcare services. Data were analyzed using interpretive thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo. Similarities and differences between South Asian and White families were analysed across key themes.ResultsMany of the problems facing families of a child with asthma were common to South Asian and White British families. Both had limited understanding of asthma causes and triggers and expressed confusion about the use of medications. Both groups reported delays in receiving a clear diagnosis and many experienced what was perceived as uncoordinated care and inconsistent advice from health professionals. No family had received an asthma plan. South Asian families had more difficulty in recognising severity of symptoms and those with limited English faced additional barriers to receiving adequate information and advice about management due to poor communication support systems. South Asian parents reported higher levels of involvement of wider family and higher levels of stigma. Attendance at the emergency department was related to previous experience, difficulties in accessing primary care, lack of knowledge of alternatives and difficulties in assessing severity.ConclusionsBarriers to optimal asthma management exist at the individual family, community and healthcare systems levels. Culturally sensitive, holistic and collaboratively designed interventions are needed. Improved communication support for families with lower proficiency in English is required. Healthcare professionals need to ensure that families receive an asthma plan and make greater efforts to check families’ understandings of asthma triggers, use of medications, assessment of asthma severity and accessing help.

BackgroundIn the UK, people of South Asian origin with asthma experience excess morbidity, with hospitalisation rates three times those of the majority White population and evidence suggests that South Asian children with asthma are more likely to suffer uncontrolled symptoms and hospital admissions with acute asthma compared to White British children. This paper draws on data from The Management and Interventions for Asthma (MIA) study to identify the operation of barriers to optimal care and good asthma control for South Asian children.MethodsThe MIA study followed a multi-phase, iterative, participatory design, underpinned by the socio-ecological model. Findings presented here are from face-to face, semi-structured interviews with South Asian (Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi origin) parents and carers of a child with asthma (n = 49). Interviews were conducted in English or relevant South Asian languages using specially trained community facilitators. Data were transcribed verbatim and analysed according to the principles of interpretive thematic analysis, facilitated by the use of NVivo.ResultsSeven dimensions of candidacy are identified: identification of candidacy; navigation; the permeability of asthma services; appearances at health services; adjudications; offers and resistance and operating conditions in the local production of candidacy. The analysis demonstrates several ways in which a potential lack of alignment between the priorities and competencies of British South Asian families and the organization of health services combine to create vulnerabilities and difficulties in effectively managing childhood asthma.ConclusionsHealthcare systems have a responsibility to develop services that are sensitive and appropriate to the needs of their communities. In South Asian communities, further efforts are required to raise awareness of symptoms and effectively communicate how, when and where to seek help for children. There is a need for improved diagnosis and consistent, effectively communicated information, especially regarding medication. Parents made several suggestions for improving services: presentations about asthma at easily accessible community venues; an advice centre or telephone helpline to answer queries; opportunities for sharing experiences with other families; having information provided in South Asian languages; longer GP appointments; extended use of asthma nurses; and better education for healthcare professionals to ensure consistency of care and advice.

There has been longstanding interest in the consistency of decisions made by research ethics committees (RECs) in the UK, but most of the evidence has come from single studies submitted to multiple committees. A systematic comparison was carried out of the decisions made on 18 purposively selected applications, each of which was reviewed independently by three different RECs in a single strategic health authority. Decisions on 11 applications were consistent, but disparities were found among RECs on decisions on seven applications. An analysis of the agreement between decisions of RECs yielded an overall measure of agreement of kappa = 0.286 (95% confidence interval -0.06 to 0.73), indicating a level of agreement that, although probably better than chance, may be described as "slight". The small sample size limits the robustness of these findings. Further research on reasons for inconsistencies in decision making between RECs, and on the importance of such inconsistencies for a range of arguments, is needed.

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are increasingly institutionalised as a feature of research practice, but have remained strangely neglected by social scientists. In this paper we argue that analysis of letters from RECs to researchers offers important insights into how RECs operate. We report a content analysis and an ethnographic content analysis of 141 letters to researchers, together with an analysis of the organisational and institutional arrangements for RECs in the UK. We show that REC letters perform three important social functions. First, they define what is deemed by a REC to be ethical practice for any particular application, and confer authoritativeness on that definition. They do this actively, through comments on particular aspects of proposals, and passively, through silences about other aspects. Second, they provide an account of the work of the REC, and function as a form of institutional display. Third, they specify the nature of the relationship between the REC and the applicant, casting the applicant in a supplicant role and requiring forms of docility. Writing and reading REC letters requires highly specific competences, and engage both parties in a Bourdieusian "game" that discourages challenges from researchers. The authority of RECs' decisions derives not from their appeal to the moral superiority of any ethical position, but through their place in the organisational structure and the social positioning of the parties to the process thus implied. Letters are the critical point at which RECs act on researchers and their projects.