This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McCusker, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schiff, B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by McCusker, J.
Right arrow Articles by Schiff, B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Informed consent
Right arrow Research & Publication ethics
Right arrow Quality improvement
Right arrow Doing research
CMAJ • May 1, 2001; 164 (9)
© 2001 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors

Review
Synthèse

Monitoring clinical research: report of one hospital's experience

Jane McCusker*{dagger}, Zita Kruszewski{ddagger}§, Belaine Lacey{ddagger} and Benjamin Schiff{ddagger}

From the *Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Community Studies, St. Mary's Hospital Centre, Montreal, Que.; the {dagger}Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McGill University, Montreal, Que.; the {ddagger}Research Ethics Committee, St. Mary's Hospital Centre, Montreal, Que.; the §Department of Clinical Ethics, St. Mary's Hospital Centre, Montreal, Que.; and the ¶Department of Family Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, Que.

Abstract

MONITORING OF RESEARCH BY RESEARCH ETHICS BOARDS HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED by various organizations that fund clinical studies and by other groups. However, little evidence has been reported on the processes, costs and outcomes of these activities, information that would be helpful to guide the boards in their current work and future policies. We report here 3 years of monitoring experience by the research ethics board of a 313-bed university-affiliated community hospital. Activities newly implemented at the beginning of the study period included the use of recruitment logs, audits of completed consent forms and interviews with research subjects. Over the study period, we monitored 33 protocols, through 188 consent form audits and interviews with 17 research subjects. In addition, 26 of 34 research investigators and collaborators responded to a survey about the monitoring. In general, the investigators were supportive of monitoring activities, but most were not willing to contribute financially. The types of monitoring we conducted are feasible and may be suitable (or could be adapted) for use in other institutions.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 CMAJHome page
J. Mendelson and F. Cantini
Who should foot the bill for continuing review of research?
Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 1, 2001; 165(8): 1004 - 1004.
[Full Text]