English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many studies examining several aspects of multi-institutional research ethics review and the opinions of different stakeholders show the current process to be resource intensive and inefficient. We discuss the experiences and opinions of individual Canadian allergy/asthma researchers engaged in multi-centre research and find that most researchers are dissatisfied, perceive the process as ineffective, and strongly desire some type of reform. These results highlight the tension between efficiency in research ethics review and the effective protection of subjects. Harmonization initiatives and alternate review strategies are being implemented throughout Canada and should help increase efficiency while not compromising the protection of research subjects. With time, evidence gathered from empirical studies that evaluate these new strategies will help determine the effectiveness of the various reform strategies for multi-site ethics review.

journal of clinical research and bioethics

Balancing Efficiency and the Protection of Research Participants: Canadian Allergy/Asthma Researchers’ Perspectives on the Ethics Review of Multi-Site Health Research