Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorDudi-Venkata, Nagendra N-
dc.contributor.authorCox, Daniel R A-
dc.contributor.authorMarson, Nicholas-
dc.contributor.authorTan, Lorwai-
dc.contributor.authorPockney, Peter-
dc.contributor.authorMuralidharan, Vijayaragavan-
dc.contributor.authorWatson, David I-
dc.contributor.authorRichards, Toby-
dc.identifier.citationANZ Journal of Surgery 2021; 91(11): 2263-2268en
dc.description.abstractIn Australia, ethics committees across different states vary in application, requirement and process for the ethical review and approval for clinical research. This may lead to confusion and delays in the enablement of multicentre research projects. This study explores the effect of differing processes for Ethics and Governance in the establishment of the CovidSurg-Cancer study during the global COVID-19 pandemic. An anonymous, structured web-based questionnaire was designed using the Research Electronic Data Capture application (REDCap) platform to capture consultant surgeons, fellows, and trainees experience in the ethics application process. 'CovidSurg-Cancer' was an international multicentre collaborative study to assess the impact of COVID-19 on the outcomes of patients undergoing cancer surgery. The ethics process to set up this observational study was used as to explore the differing processes applied across Australia. The CovidSurg-Cancer study was successfully set up in 14 hospitals. Four hospitals approved the study directly as an audit. Of the remaining sites, 10 ethics applications underwent Human Research Ethics Committee review following which two (14%) were subsequently approved as an audit activity and eight hospitals (57%) were given formal ethical approval with waiver of consent. Ethics application acceptance from another Australian Human Research Ethics Committee was provided with six applications; however, only three were reciprocated without the requirement for further agreements. A third of (30%) respondents suggested that the details of the application pathway, process and documentation were unclear. Ethics processes are varied across Australia with considerable repetition. A centralized, harmonized application process would enhance collaborative research.en
dc.subjectcollaborative researchen
dc.subjectresearch ethicen
dc.subjectsurgical researchen
dc.titleVariation in Human Research Ethics Committee and governance processes throughout Australia: a need for a uniform approach.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleANZ Journal of Surgeryen
dc.identifier.affiliationDiscipline of Surgery, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSouth Australian Trainees Audit and Research Collaborative (STARC), Adelaide, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationTROCAR, Trainee-led Research in Orthopaedics: Collaborative of Australian Registrars, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationVERITAS Collaborativeen
dc.identifier.affiliationFlinders University Discipline of Surgery, Flinders Medical Centre, Adelaide, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationDivision of Surgery, University of Western Australia, Fiona Stanley Hospital, Perth, Western Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationClinical Trials Network of Australia and New Zealand (CTANZ), Research, Audit and Academic Surgery, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Adelaide, South Australia, Australiaen
dc.identifier.affiliationSurgery (University of Melbourne)en
dc.identifier.pubmedid33851489-, Daniel R A
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
item.grantfulltextnone- Surgery- (University of Melbourne)- Surgery-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

checked on Oct 1, 2023

Google ScholarTM


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.