• English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • English 
    • English
    • français
    • Deutsch
    • español
    • português (Brasil)
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • русский
    • العربية
    • 中文
  • Login
View Item 
  •   Home
  • Ethics collections
  • Health Ethics
  • View Item
  •   Home
  • Ethics collections
  • Health Ethics
  • View Item
JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

Browse

All of the LibraryCommunitiesPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsThis CollectionPublication DateTitlesSubjectsAuthorsProfilesView

My Account

Login

The Library

AboutNew SubmissionSubmission GuideSearch GuideRepository PolicyContact

Statistics

Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

Auditing the process of ethics approval for Master’s degrees at a South African university

  • CSV
  • RefMan
  • EndNote
  • BibTex
  • RefWorks
Author(s)
Damian Clarke
Keywords
Medical legislation
K3601-3611
Medicine
R
Medical philosophy. Medical ethics
R723-726

Full record
Show full item record
URI
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/253457
Online Access
https://doaj.org/article/09d1de8cd70145688a181f715a2977c6
Abstract
Introduction. This study audited the process of ethics approval for Master’s research at the Nelson R Mandela School of Medicine, Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.Methods. After obtaining the appropriate ethical approval, all the correspondence surrounding each Master’s proposal for the year 2010 was reviewed. Results. A total of 53 proposals for Master’s degrees were available for review. All the proposals were for low-risk studies, and all were subjected to expedited review. It took an average of 15 weeks (range 3 - 32) for the institutional ethics review board (the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee (BREC)) to respond to each of the 53 proposals. Twenty-three studies (43.4%) received provisional approval on the first response, 2 proposals (3.8%) were rejected, and 28 proposals (52.8%) were sent back with major queries. For the 28 proposals that required major revisions, 11 responses had been submitted by the time the data were collected. The average length of time to receive a response from the applicants to BREC queries was 4 weeks.Conclusion. This study suggests that there is a potential cumulative delay of over 4 months before data collection for low-risk clinical audits can be commenced. Any system designed to improve this situation must ensure that high standards of vigilance are maintained, but must be flexible enough to allow for a faster review and approval process.
Date
2014-04-01
Type
Article
Identifier
oai:doaj.org/article:09d1de8cd70145688a181f715a2977c6
10.7196/SAJBL.301
1999-7639
https://doaj.org/article/09d1de8cd70145688a181f715a2977c6
Collections
Health Ethics
Philosophical Ethics

entitlement

 
DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2022)  DuraSpace
Quick Guide | Contact Us
Open Repository is a service operated by 
Atmire NV
 

Export search results

The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.