Ethics Governance
Ethics & Governance - Resources and Articles |
| Articles indexes: a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h | i | j | k | l | m | n | o | p | q | r | s | t | u | v | w | x | y | z | other | |
|
|
| Article - Abstract. To view full article click on the article title. | |
eMJA: Ethics review and use of reminder letters in postal surveys: are current practices compromising an evidence-based approach? Ethics review and use of reminder letters in postal surveys: are current practices compromising an evidence-based approach? Stuart C Howell, Susan Quine and Nicholas J Talley MJA 2003 178 (1): 43 To the Editor: Survey data are difficult to publish when response rates fall below 60%. Reminder letters are the most reliable method of improving response rates in postal surveys,1,2 and three to four reminders are needed to achieve the 60% benchmark. The additional benefit of sending five or more reminders appears negligible, suggesting that four is the optimum number to maximise response rates using this approach.1 Our recent experiences suggest that human research ethics committees (HRECs) are seeking to limit the number of reminder letters on the grounds that they could be construed as harassment of research subjects. We recently submitted applications to two HRECs, seeking permission to conduct a multicentre postal survey in our local area. One committee approved the use of a single reminder letter, while the second approved the use of two. We appealed both decisions, citing evidence from earlier studies.1,2 The first committee reversed its decision and subsequently approved use of three reminders; the second committee upheld its decision to allow only two reminders. Thus, our study was effectively restricted to two reminder letters. These experiences highlight two limitations of the ethics review process in Australia. First, the process is highly fragmented and lacks standardisation. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_01_060103/howell_060103.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||