Ethics and governance for a multi‐site study in Australia: Navigating the snakes and ladders

Abstract

Multi‐site research studies are essential if we are to conduct national research across all Australian jurisdictions. There is widespread agreement among clinicians and researchers that obtaining essential approvals to conduct multi‐site research studies in Australia can be complex, bureaucratic and time consuming. Although there is inherent value in the review process, resources and months of valuable research time are often expended long before the study has begun. Using our recent experience for a multi‐site, longitudinal paediatric cohort study of children and adolescents who were detained in offshore immigration detention on Nauru, we describe the process of navigating the ethics and governance approval systems. We identify tips for researchers and clinicians conducting multi‐site studies, including early consultation with ethics and governance committees, using their recommended templates, anticipating time delays, and commencing time consuming processes as early as permissible. Our recommendations at the systemic level include streamlined and integrated ethics and governance review processes for all Australian jurisdictions, with co‐ordinated requests for further information, a standardised approach across all Research Governance Offices, a rapid system for addressing amendments and individualised study support and consultations. Above all, a nationally agreed framework whereby ethics and governance committees across jurisdictions communicate with each other, use the same electronic platform and present a unified process whilst protecting the welfare, rights, dignity and safety of research participants is required. The complexity of the current ethics and governance processes may inadvertently and unintentionally be a barrier to conducting ethical research.

Planning a ‘negligible risk’ national health service survey? Counting the cost and strategies for success: a short report

“…Despite identification of the barriers and challenges and frequent past calls for change (Clay-Williams et al, 2018; Glasziou et al, 2021; Haas et al, 2019; Parliament of Australia, 2021; Samir et al, 2022; Scott et al, 2022), our experience reflects that inconsistencies in governance processes are still problematic, impacting on study outcomes, researcher time burden, and potentially influencing decisions to conduct future studies. We encourage efforts working towards consistent and streamlined research governance processes to support high quality, representative conduct of clinically relevant health services research.…”

Successful Recruitment to Qualitative Research: A Critical Reflection

“…Conversely, James et al (2014) expected that obtaining ethics approval for their qualitative study would be challenging; however, with minor amendments, they were granted relatively swift approval. The need to submit amendments to the original protocol can further delay ethics clearance (Samir et al, 2021).…”

Offshore detention: cross-sectional analysis of the health of children and young people seeking asylum in Australia

“…Despite comprehensive efforts to engage Australian clinicians involved in the care of refugee CYP, our final study sample size was small. Reasons for suboptimal enrolment included delays due to complex ethical and governance processes,39 clinicians facing additional clinical workload due to the COVID-19 pandemic and that some sites approached saw no previously detained CYP while others commenced alternative research studies. The relatively small sample size made multivariable regression analysis unstable.…”