Skip to main content
Log in

Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?

  • Current Opinion
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

National regulations governing human subjects research differ with regard to whether they require survey research to be overseen by institutional ethics boards or committees. In cases where ethical review has been waived, or was provided by an individual or group other than an institutional ethics board, journals may question the appropriateness of the waiver or alternative review when making determinations about whether to accept the manuscript for publication. The purpose of this article is to provide guidance for journals to consider when making determinations about the necessity of ethical review for survey research projects. We review the functions of ethics oversight and consider the importance of those functions within the context of survey research. In survey research, no intervention is delivered to research participants. As a result, there is no risk of physical harm to individuals who participate. However, there can be a risk of informational or psychological harms. In situations where there is greater than minimal risk of informational or psychological harms, the survey research should have received institutional ethics oversight. Additionally, survey research projects that enroll vulnerable individuals with diminished autonomy should receive institutional ethics oversight. We hope that this article leads to further guidance on this subject by authoritative group such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Gliner JA, Morgan GA. Research methods in applied settings: an integrated approach to design and analysis. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2010. p. 338–9.

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Research Protections. International compilation of human research standards. 2013 edition. http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/international/intlcompilation/intlcomp2013.pdf.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2015.

  3. Den Nationale Videnskabsetiske Komité. Act on Research Ethics Review of Health Research Projects. 2011. http://www.cvk.sum.dk/English/actonabiomedicalresearch.aspx. Accessed 23 June 2015.

  4. UK Department of Health. Governance arrangements for research ethics committees: a harmonised edition. 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213753/dh_133993.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2015.

  5. Australian Research Council. National statement on ethical conduct in human research 2007 (updated May 2015). http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/_files_nhmrc/publications/attachments/e72_national_statement_may_2015_150514_a.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2015.

  6. United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 45, Part 46.111.

  7. National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; 1978. Publication OS 78-0012,

  8. Department of Health and Human Services. Human subjects research protections: enhancing protections for research subjects and reducing burden, delay, and ambiguity for investigators. Fed Regist. 2011;76:44512–31.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schrag ZM. How talking became human subjects research: the Federal regulations of the social sciences, 1965–1991. J Policy Hist. 2009;21:3–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002. p. 64.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Whicher is a Program Officer for the Clinical Effectiveness Research team at the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Her views, and those of Dr. Wu, do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Danielle Whicher.

Ethics declarations

No funding was received to support the preparation of this review. Neither Danielle Whicher nor Albert Wu have any conflicts of interest to report. Their views do not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board of Governors or Methodology Committee.

Additional information

D. Whicher and A. W. Wu contributed significantly to the content of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Whicher, D., Wu, A.W. Ethics Review of Survey Research: A Mandatory Requirement for Publication?. Patient 8, 477–482 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0141-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0141-0

Keywords

Navigation