Monash Bioethics Review

, Volume 14, Issue 4, pp 18–22 | Cite as

Access and multi-centre research

  • Priscilla Alderson
  • Mary Madden
  • Ann Oakley
  • Ruth Wilkins
Article

Abstract

This paper reports a seldom considered but very important practical aspect of research: access to respondents in multi-centre research. The advantages of multi-centre research are often balanced by extra difficulties in negotiating access to the research subjects. Using the example of a multi-centre pilot study of breast cancer.1 this article reviews various structures barring researchers’ access, and considers reasons for these barriers. The consequent costs to research in time, resources and staff continuity are discussed, and ways of addressing problems of access are suggested.

Keywords

Breast Cancer Routine Part Social Science Study Trap Door Extra Difficulty 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P Alderson, M Madden, A Oakley, R Wilkins, Women’s views of breast cancer treatment and research. London: Social Science Research Unit, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    HC Tate, JB Rawlinson, LS Freedman. Randomized comparative studies in the treatment of cancer in the UK: room for improvement? Lancet (1979) ii: 623–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    S Stenning. “The uncertainty principle”: selection of patients for cancer clinical trials. In: CJ Williams, ed Introducing new treatments for cancer: practical, ethical and legal problems. Chichester. Wiley, 1992: 161–172.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Advisory Group on Health Technology Assessment. Assessing the effects of health technologies: principles, practice, proposals. London: Department of Health, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    TJ Berry, TE Ades, CS Peckham. Too many ethical committees. BMJ (1990) 301:1274 (Letter).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cartwright, Madden, Rushton, Murray, Dury. Research ethics committees (Letters). BMJ (1990) 300:607.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chalmers & Chalmers, Baum, Nicholson, Taylor, Meade, Carty. Research ethics committees (Letters). BMJ (1990) 300: 395–6, 470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    M Ginzler, J Davies, K McPherson, N Black. Ethics committees and health services research. Journal of Public Health Medicine (1990) 12: 190–6.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    S Lock, Towards a national bioethics committee. BMJ (1990) 300: 1149–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    AW Macara. Ethical review of multi-centre trials. J. Med. Ethics (1990) 16:150–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    M Warnock. A national ethics committee. BMJ (1988) 297: 1626–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Editorial. Breast cancer have we lost our way? Lancet (1993) 341: 343–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    J Neuberger. Ethics and health care: the role of research ethics committees in the United Kingdom, London: King’s Fund Institute, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Exercising accountability. London: UKCC, 1989.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D Tannen. You just don’t understand: women and men in conversation. London: Virago, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C Gilligan. In a different voice: psychological theory and women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P Alderson. Choosing for children: parents’ consent to surgery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    S Sherwin. No longer patient: feminist ethics and health care. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    A Oakley. Social support and motherhood: the natural history of a research project. Oxford; Blackwell, 1992.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R Smith. The ethics of ignorance J. Med. Ethics (1992) 18: 117–8, 134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    K Taylor, M Kelner. Informed consent: the physicians’ perspective. Soc. Sci. Med (1987) 24: 135–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Monash University 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Priscilla Alderson
    • 1
  • Mary Madden
    • 1
  • Ann Oakley
    • 1
  • Ruth Wilkins
    • 1
  1. 1.Social Science Research UnitInstitute of EducationLondon

Personalised recommendations