Evaluation of the work of hospital districts’ research ethics committees in Finland: Table 1

Abstract

The main task of research ethics committees (RECs) is to assess research studies before their start. In this study, 24 RECs that evaluate medical research were sent questionnaires about their structure and functions. The RECs were divided into two separate groups: those working in university hospital districts (uRECs) and those in central hospital districts (non-uRECs). The two groups were different in many respects: the uRECs were bigger in size, covered a wider range of disciplines (both medical and non-medical), had better resources and more frequent and regular meetings. After the survey was performed and analysed, the Medical Research Act was amended so that only hospital districts with a medical faculty in their region had a duty to establish ethics committees. After the amendment, the number of RECs evaluating medical research in Finland decreased from 25 to 9. The ethics committees that remained had wider expertise and were better equipped already by the time of this survey. Only one non-uREC was continuing its work, and this was being done under the governance of a university hospital district. Simple measures were used for qualitative analysis of the work of RECs that evaluate medical research. These showed differences between RECs. This may be helpful in establishing an ethics committee network in a research field or administrational area.

Solving work-related ethical problems

“…Two dominant types of ethics committees exists in organizations: (1) research ethics committees (RECs), which focus on a review of research practices involving human subjects and (2) clinical ethics committees (CECs), which focus on moral issues related to patient care. 44,45 In Finland, there are nine RECs, and they are centralized in university hospital regions 46 and regulated by the Medical Research Act. 37 REC regulatory structures have been developed at both international and national levels, while CECs have remained much less regulated.…”

Research Ethics and Justice: The Case of Finland

“…Ritva Halila and her collaborators have done much work in this field, and covered topics such as the role of national ethics commissions in Finland, 103 children's decision-making powers in medical research participation, 104 international ethical regulations on medical research in emergency settings, 105 ethically-problematic treatment decisions in different medical specialties, 106 and the work of hospital districts' research ethics committees in Finland. 107 Issues of justice feature in contributions like these, mainly in the forms of formal equality and considerations of utility and consent.…”

Performance of IRBs in China: a survey on IRB employees and researchers’ experiences and perceptions

“…Perspectives from IRB members and researchers are fundamental then to understanding IRB performance, and several studies have targeted this concept [8]. To date, IRB performance has been examined in more than 14 countries worldwide such as in Europe and the Americas [9][10][11][12][13][14][15], Africa [16][17][18][19][20][21][22], and Asia [23][24][25][26]. One study conducted in low to middle-income countries (LMICs) focused on IRB chairpersons to evaluate whether the IRB's functions complied with recognized international standards [27].…”