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? Jeanette E Ward MJA 2003 178 (1): 43-44 Comment: Howell and his coauthors invite human research ethics committees (HRECs) to standardise their judgements about key aspects of methods, such as response-aiding strategies.1 Their balanced and thoughtful analysis of their experience in securing approval from two HRECs for reminders to enhance response rates to a postal community survey adds to previous concerns about decision-making by HRECs in Australia.2,3 In an era of evidence-based healthcare, there are two main reasons to insist that HRECs only approve protocols for surveys that propose scientifically based procedures to increase response rates. First, applicants are applying empirical insights from previous research in their own practice. Hence, methods are evidence based. Second, applicants are doing their best to ensure the validity of their future data. As eloquently quantified elsewhere, surveys with low response rates are plagued by response bias.4 Indeed, it was recently asserted that, for mailed surveys, "you need an 80–85% response rate to make it epidemiologically significant".5 Fortunately, there is the most rigorous evidence (Level 1) for specific response-aiding strategies for surveys of medical practitioners in Australia.6 Howell and colleagues cite two recent studies of response-aiding strategies in lay surveys. Yet such compelling evidence appears to have been inadequate to secure identical responses from at least two HRECs. Full Article: http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/178_01_060103/ward_060103.html |
|
2006 Ethics-Governance.com |
|||