How to learn to love your research ethics committee: recommendations for psychologists

Wassenaar, Douglas; Slack, Catherine

doi:10.1177/0081246316654348

Cited by 20 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Internet-based interventions that facilitate social networking between participants, and those developed for populations known to be at specific risk of suicide (such as those with suicidality in the context of psychosis, older adults, and sexual and gender minorities), may be worthy of further exploration. Consistent with recommendations for clinical research more generally [58], respondents emphasised the importance of collaboration and open dialogue with research ethics committees, however there was little mention of involving consumers, including those with lived experience of suicidal behaviour, in the design of studies. Additionally, there were inconsistencies in the level of detail reported in the published literature regarding safety protocols, which is surprising given the emphasis on safety and risk management.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ethical issues and practical barriers in internet-based suicide prevention research: a review and investigator survey

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: People who are at elevated risk of suicide stand to benefit from internet-based interventions; however, research in this area is likely impacted by a range of ethical and practical challenges. The aim of this study was to examine the ethical issues and practical barriers associated with clinical studies of internet-based interventions for suicide prevention. Method: This was a mixed-methods study involving two phases. First, a systematic search was conducted to identify studies evaluating internet-based interventions for people at risk of suicide, and information pertaining to safety protocols and exclusion criteria was extracted. Second, investigators on the included studies were invited to complete an online survey comprising open-ended and forced-choice responses. Quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyse the data. Results: The literature search identified 18 eligible studies, of which three excluded participants based on severity of suicide risk. Half of the 15 suicide researchers who participated in the survey had experienced problems obtaining ethics approval, and none had encountered adverse events attributed to their intervention. Survey respondents noted the difficulty of managing risk in online environments and the limitations associated with implementing safety protocols, although some also reported increased confidence resulting from the ethical review process. Respondents recommended researchers pursue a collaborative relationship with their research ethics committees. Conclusion: There is a balance to be achieved between the need to minimise the risk of adverse events whilst also ensuring interventions are being validated on populations who may be most likely to use and benefit from them (i.e., those who prefer anonymity). Further research is required to obtain the views of research ethics committees and research participants on these issues. Dialogue between researchers and ethics committees is necessary to address the need to ensure safety while also advancing the timely development of effective interventions in this critical area.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Ethical issues and practical barriers in internet-based suicide prevention research: a review and investigator survey

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This suggests that researchers definitely need to proofread their ethics applications, and check that they have included all the information and documentation required, before submission. [25] A UK study similarly found that RECs frequently identify editorial errors and missing documents in applications for ethics approval. [26] It could be argued that editorial and administrative issues reflect poor attention to detail by researchers, which could be viewed by RECs as a predictor of similar poor oversight in the study being proposed.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both stakeholder groups should continually aim to understand the key ethical issues applicable to human participant research, and learn how to better address such issues in applications for ethics approval. There is a real opportunity for RECs to be more open with researchers, and advise them amicably in advance of protocol submission to flag and address potential ethical issues, [25] in order to avoid the perception that they are 'ethics police' . [3] There are potential limitations to the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Views of South African biomedical research ethics committee members on their own ethics review outcomes

Silaigwana

Wassenaar

2019

S Afr J BL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research ethics committees (RECs; known as institutional review boards (IRBs) in the USA) are an integral part of the human research participants' protection system. [1] They have the authority to approve, conditionally approve or reject research proposals, depending on the committee's determination of a study's ethical acceptability, as judged in terms of local and international guidance. [1] Unfortunately, RECs generally operate behind closed doors, meaning that there is little understanding of REC reviews in practice. Two books, Behind Closed Doors: IRBs and the Making of Ethical Research [2] and Ethics Police: The Struggle to Make Human Research Safe, [3] provide important insights into the work of IRBs in the USA. However, research into the operation of RECs is still relatively limited in developing countries such as South Africa (SA). While RECs play an important role in ensuring the protection of research participants, they are often heavily criticised for overstepping their scope, being too bureaucratic, delaying important research and spending too much time rewording informed consent forms. [3,4] Some social science commentators have even called for the abolition of REC reviews, arguing that mandatory ethics review is itself unethical because RECs do not respect researchers or each other, lack merit and integrity and are neither just nor beneficent. [5] Despite such criticism, there have been relatively few empirical studies exploring the work of RECs, although some studies [6-9] have examined REC minutes and decision letters retrospectively to identify the ethical issues raised, both internationally and in SA. These studies This open-access article is distributed under Creative Commons licence CC-BY-NC 4.0.

show abstract

“…Some journals will request a section on ethical considerations and others will want the information in a procedures or data collection section of a paper. Wassenaar and Slack (2016) provide further discussion on some aspects of research ethics in an accompanying paper in this issue.…”

Section: Professional Precision: Clarifying the Data Collection Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ostinato rigore: establishing methodological rigour in quantitative research

Laher

2016

South African Journal of Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The last 20 years in South Africa and abroad have evidenced huge changes in the ways in which research is accessed and produced. These changes were facilitated by the rapid developments in technology. Collaborating with researchers across the globe and accessing articles and research can be done at the push of a button and response times are as instantaneous. Conducting and communicating one’s own research are also much easier. This led to a veritable explosion of publishers and journals, some of which are legitimate and others predatory. In this climate, the adage of ‘publish or perish’ has become a lived reality placing increasing pressure on scholars to publish. An unintended consequence of this is the increasing lack of methodological rigour in studies. This article advocates for increasing attention to methodological rigour in quantitative research. In so doing, guidelines and suggestions are provided in terms of elements to be considered within each of the broad aspects of a study, namely, sampling, instrumentation, methods, design, and data analysis. These are drawn from the literature as well as the author’s own experiences in teaching quantitative research methods, supervising postgraduate student research, reviewing articles for local and international journals, as well as experiences of reviewing articles located within the quantitative paradigm as Associate Editor for the South African Journal of Psychology. Ultimately, this article seeks to create awareness among researchers around the necessity for methodologically rigorous research to enhance the quality of outputs. This will have the effect of producing impactful research that can confidently inform policy, practice, and training within the discipline.

show abstract

How to learn to love your research ethics committee: recommendations for psychologists

Cited by 20 publications

References 39 publications

Ethical issues and practical barriers in internet-based suicide prevention research: a review and investigator survey

Ethical issues and practical barriers in internet-based suicide prevention research: a review and investigator survey

Views of South African biomedical research ethics committee members on their own ethics review outcomes

Ostinato rigore: establishing methodological rigour in quantitative research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About