In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees
Identifieur interne : 003F19 ( Istex/Corpus ); précédent : 003F18; suivant : 003F20In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees
Auteurs : Elizabeth Fistein ; Sally QuilliganSource :
- Journal of Medical Ethics [ 0306-6800 ] ; 2012-04.
English descriptors
- KwdEn :
- Appointment letters, Clinical encounters, Clinical medicine, Committee members, Consent process, Conversation analysis, Ethical approval, Ethical research, Ethical review process, Ethics committees, Ethics review, Good practice, Governance arrangements, Information sheets, Institutional discourse, Mental capacity, National health service, National patient safety agency, Novice researchers, Observational research, Participant, Pilot study, Potential harm, Potential participants, Protocol, Research ethics committees, Research questions, Researcher, Service users.
- Teeft :
- Appointment letters, Clinical encounters, Clinical medicine, Committee members, Consent process, Conversation analysis, Ethical approval, Ethical research, Ethical review process, Ethics committees, Ethics review, Good practice, Governance arrangements, Information sheets, Institutional discourse, Mental capacity, National health service, National patient safety agency, Novice researchers, Observational research, Participant, Pilot study, Potential harm, Potential participants, Protocol, Research ethics committees, Research questions, Researcher, Service users.
Abstract
Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.
Url:
DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2011-100124
Links to Exploration step
ISTEX:7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1Le document en format XML
<record><TEI wicri:istexFullTextTei="biblStruct"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title>In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><author><name sortKey="Fistein, Elizabeth" sort="Fistein, Elizabeth" uniqKey="Fistein E" first="Elizabeth" last="Fistein">Elizabeth Fistein</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Quilligan, Sally" sort="Quilligan, Sally" uniqKey="Quilligan S" first="Sally" last="Quilligan">Sally Quilligan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></titleStmt><publicationStmt><idno type="wicri:source">ISTEX</idno><idno type="RBID">ISTEX:7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1</idno><date when="2011" year="2011">2011</date><idno type="doi">10.1136/medethics-2011-100124</idno><idno type="url">https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/fulltext/pdf</idno><idno type="wicri:Area/Istex/Corpus">003F19</idno><idno type="wicri:explorRef" wicri:stream="Istex" wicri:step="Corpus" wicri:corpus="ISTEX">003F19</idno></publicationStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct><analytic><title level="a">In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><author><name sortKey="Fistein, Elizabeth" sort="Fistein, Elizabeth" uniqKey="Fistein E" first="Elizabeth" last="Fistein">Elizabeth Fistein</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation><affiliation><mods:affiliation>E-mail: ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author><author><name sortKey="Quilligan, Sally" sort="Quilligan, Sally" uniqKey="Quilligan S" first="Sally" last="Quilligan">Sally Quilligan</name><affiliation><mods:affiliation>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</mods:affiliation></affiliation></author></analytic><monogr></monogr><series><title level="j">Journal of Medical Ethics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J Med Ethics</title><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno><idno type="eISSN">1473-4257</idno><imprint><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><date type="published" when="2012-04">2012-04</date><biblScope unit="volume">38</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="224">224</biblScope></imprint><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno></series></biblStruct></sourceDesc><seriesStmt><idno type="ISSN">0306-6800</idno></seriesStmt></fileDesc><profileDesc><textClass><keywords scheme="KwdEn" xml:lang="en"><term>Appointment letters</term><term>Clinical encounters</term><term>Clinical medicine</term><term>Committee members</term><term>Consent process</term><term>Conversation analysis</term><term>Ethical approval</term><term>Ethical research</term><term>Ethical review process</term><term>Ethics committees</term><term>Ethics review</term><term>Good practice</term><term>Governance arrangements</term><term>Information sheets</term><term>Institutional discourse</term><term>Mental capacity</term><term>National health service</term><term>National patient safety agency</term><term>Novice researchers</term><term>Observational research</term><term>Participant</term><term>Pilot study</term><term>Potential harm</term><term>Potential participants</term><term>Protocol</term><term>Research ethics committees</term><term>Research questions</term><term>Researcher</term><term>Service users</term></keywords><keywords scheme="Teeft" xml:lang="en"><term>Appointment letters</term><term>Clinical encounters</term><term>Clinical medicine</term><term>Committee members</term><term>Consent process</term><term>Conversation analysis</term><term>Ethical approval</term><term>Ethical research</term><term>Ethical review process</term><term>Ethics committees</term><term>Ethics review</term><term>Good practice</term><term>Governance arrangements</term><term>Information sheets</term><term>Institutional discourse</term><term>Mental capacity</term><term>National health service</term><term>National patient safety agency</term><term>Novice researchers</term><term>Observational research</term><term>Participant</term><term>Pilot study</term><term>Potential harm</term><term>Potential participants</term><term>Protocol</term><term>Research ethics committees</term><term>Research questions</term><term>Researcher</term><term>Service users</term></keywords></textClass><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage></profileDesc></teiHeader><front><div type="abstract">Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.</div></front></TEI><istex><corpusName>bmj</corpusName><keywords><teeft><json:string>research ethics committees</json:string><json:string>ethical approval</json:string><json:string>potential participants</json:string><json:string>pilot study</json:string><json:string>researcher</json:string><json:string>ethics review</json:string><json:string>ethical review process</json:string><json:string>mental capacity</json:string><json:string>national health service</json:string><json:string>service users</json:string><json:string>consent process</json:string><json:string>participant</json:string><json:string>appointment letters</json:string><json:string>novice researchers</json:string><json:string>observational research</json:string><json:string>institutional discourse</json:string><json:string>ethics committees</json:string><json:string>research questions</json:string><json:string>good practice</json:string><json:string>committee members</json:string><json:string>national patient safety agency</json:string><json:string>clinical medicine</json:string><json:string>ethical research</json:string><json:string>information sheets</json:string><json:string>potential harm</json:string><json:string>clinical encounters</json:string><json:string>conversation analysis</json:string><json:string>governance arrangements</json:string><json:string>protocol</json:string></teeft></keywords><author><json:item><name>Elizabeth Fistein</name><affiliations><json:string>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</json:string><json:string>E-mail: ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</json:string></affiliations></json:item><json:item><name>Sally Quilligan</name><affiliations><json:string>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</json:string></affiliations></json:item></author><articleId><json:string>medethics-2011-100124</json:string></articleId><arkIstex>ark:/67375/NVC-2MT5BZMJ-Q</arkIstex><language><json:string>eng</json:string></language><originalGenre><json:string>research-article</json:string></originalGenre><abstract>Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.</abstract><qualityIndicators><score>5.937</score><pdfWordCount>3025</pdfWordCount><pdfCharCount>20013</pdfCharCount><pdfVersion>1.4</pdfVersion><pdfPageCount>4</pdfPageCount><pdfPageSize>595.276 x 793.701 pts</pdfPageSize><refBibsNative>true</refBibsNative><abstractWordCount>76</abstractWordCount><abstractCharCount>521</abstractCharCount><keywordCount>0</keywordCount></qualityIndicators><title>In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><pmid><json:string>22048853</json:string></pmid><genre><json:string>research-article</json:string></genre><host><title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title><language><json:string>unknown</json:string></language><issn><json:string>0306-6800</json:string></issn><eissn><json:string>1473-4257</json:string></eissn><publisherId><json:string>jme</json:string></publisherId><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><pages><first>224</first></pages><genre><json:string>journal</json:string></genre><subject><json:item><value>Unlocked</value></json:item></subject></host><namedEntities><unitex><date><json:string>2005</json:string><json:string>2011-11-02</json:string></date><geogName></geogName><orgName><json:string>UK National Research Ethics Service</json:string><json:string>National Health and Medical Council</json:string><json:string>University of Cambridge</json:string><json:string>Department of Health</json:string><json:string>Australia and New Zealand</json:string><json:string>General Medical Council</json:string><json:string>National Patient Safety Agency</json:string><json:string>UK NHS REC</json:string><json:string>National Research Ethics Service</json:string><json:string>UK Correspondence</json:string><json:string>UK National Health Service REC</json:string><json:string>National Health Service</json:string><json:string>National Patient</json:string><json:string>’s Department of Health</json:string><json:string>Department of School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, GPEG, IPH, Forvie Site, Robinson Road, Cambridge CB</json:string></orgName><orgName_funder></orgName_funder><orgName_provider></orgName_provider><persName><json:string>Sally Quilligan</json:string><json:string>Elizabeth Fistein</json:string><json:string>Safety</json:string></persName><placeName><json:string>Australia</json:string><json:string>UK</json:string><json:string>Capacity</json:string></placeName><ref_url></ref_url><ref_bibl></ref_bibl><bibl></bibl></unitex></namedEntities><ark><json:string>ark:/67375/NVC-2MT5BZMJ-Q</json:string></ark><categories><wos><json:string>1 - social science</json:string><json:string>2 - social sciences, biomedical</json:string><json:string>2 - social issues</json:string><json:string>2 - ethics</json:string><json:string>1 - science</json:string><json:string>2 - medical ethics</json:string></wos><scienceMetrix><json:string>1 - arts & humanities</json:string><json:string>2 - philosophy & theology</json:string><json:string>3 - applied ethics</json:string></scienceMetrix><scopus><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Medicine</json:string><json:string>3 - Health Policy</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Arts and Humanities</json:string><json:string>3 - Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)</json:string><json:string>1 - Health Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Nursing</json:string><json:string>3 - Issues, ethics and legal aspects</json:string><json:string>1 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>2 - Social Sciences</json:string><json:string>3 - Health(social science)</json:string></scopus><inist><json:string>1 - sciences humaines et sociales</json:string></inist></categories><publicationDate>2012</publicationDate><copyrightDate>2011</copyrightDate><doi><json:string>10.1136/medethics-2011-100124</json:string></doi><id>7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1</id><score>1</score><fulltext><json:item><extension>pdf</extension><original>true</original><mimetype>application/pdf</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/fulltext/pdf</uri></json:item><json:item><extension>zip</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/zip</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/fulltext/zip</uri></json:item><istex:fulltextTEI uri="https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/fulltext/tei"><teiHeader><fileDesc><titleStmt><title level="a">In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title></titleStmt><publicationStmt><authority>ISTEX</authority><publisher scheme="https://publisher-list.data.istex.fr">BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><availability status="free"><p>Open Access</p></availability><date>2011-11-02</date></publicationStmt><notesStmt><note type="research-article" scheme="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</note><note type="journal" scheme="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</note></notesStmt><sourceDesc><biblStruct type="inbook"><analytic><title level="a">In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><author xml:id="author-0000" corresp="yes"><persName><forename type="first">Elizabeth</forename><surname>Fistein</surname></persName><email>ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</email><affiliation>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</affiliation></author><author xml:id="author-0001"><persName><forename type="first">Sally</forename><surname>Quilligan</surname></persName><affiliation>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</affiliation></author><idno type="istex">7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1</idno><idno type="ark">ark:/67375/NVC-2MT5BZMJ-Q</idno><idno type="DOI">10.1136/medethics-2011-100124</idno><idno type="href">medethics-38-224.pdf</idno><idno type="article-id">medethics-2011-100124</idno><idno type="PMID">22048853</idno><idno type="local">medethics;38/4/224</idno></analytic><monogr><title level="j">Journal of Medical Ethics</title><title level="j" type="abbrev">J Med Ethics</title><idno type="pISSN">0306-6800</idno><idno type="eISSN">1473-4257</idno><idno type="publisher-id">jme</idno><idno type="PublisherID-hwp">medethics</idno><idno type="PublisherID-nlm-ta">J Med Ethics</idno><imprint><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><date type="published" when="2012-04"></date><biblScope unit="volume">38</biblScope><biblScope unit="issue">4</biblScope><biblScope unit="page" from="224">224</biblScope></imprint></monogr></biblStruct></sourceDesc></fileDesc><profileDesc><creation><date>2011-11-02</date></creation><langUsage><language ident="en">en</language></langUsage><abstract><p>Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.</p></abstract><textClass><keywords scheme="Journal Subject"><list><head>hwp-journal-coll</head><item><term>Unlocked</term></item></list></keywords></textClass></profileDesc><revisionDesc><change when="2011-11-02">Created</change><change when="2012-04">Published</change></revisionDesc></teiHeader></istex:fulltextTEI><json:item><extension>txt</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>text/plain</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/fulltext/txt</uri></json:item></fulltext><metadata><istex:metadataXml wicri:clean="corpus bmj" wicri:toSee="no header"><istex:xmlDeclaration>version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="no"</istex:xmlDeclaration><istex:docType PUBLIC="-//NLM//DTD Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v2.3 20070202//EN" URI="archivearticle.dtd" name="istex:docType"></istex:docType><istex:document><article article-type="research-article"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="hwp">medethics</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">J Med Ethics</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">jme</journal-id><journal-title>Journal of Medical Ethics</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">J Med Ethics</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title>J Med Ethics</abbrev-journal-title><issn pub-type="ppub">0306-6800</issn><issn pub-type="epub">1473-4257</issn><publisher><publisher-name>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">medethics-2011-100124</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.1136/medethics-2011-100124</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">medethics;38/4/224</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">medethics;medethics-2011-100124</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="pmid">22048853</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">224</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="other">medethics-2011-100124</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research ethics</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="hwp-journal-coll"><subject>Unlocked</subject></subj-group><series-title>Paper</series-title></article-categories><title-group><article-title>In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Fistein</surname><given-names>Elizabeth</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Quilligan</surname><given-names>Sally</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1"><label>1</label>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</aff><aff id="aff2"><label>2</label>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</aff><author-notes><corresp><label>Correspondence to</label> Dr Elizabeth Fistein, Department of School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, GPEG, IPH, Forvie Site, Robinson Road, Cambridge CB2 0SP, UK; <email>ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</email></corresp></author-notes><pub-date pub-type="epub-original"><day>2</day><month>11</month><year>2011</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><month>4</month><year>2012</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>2</day><month>11</month><year>2011</year></pub-date><volume>38</volume><volume-id pub-id-type="other">38</volume-id><volume-id pub-id-type="other">38</volume-id><issue>4</issue><issue-id pub-id-type="other">medethics;38/4</issue-id><issue-id pub-id-type="other">4</issue-id><issue-id pub-id-type="other">38/4</issue-id><fpage>224</fpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>30</day><month>8</month><year>2011</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>10</day><month>9</month><year>2011</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>© 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2012</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/"><p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/</ext-link> and <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode</ext-link>.</p></license></permissions><self-uri content-type="pdf" xlink:role="full-text" xlink:href="medethics-38-224.pdf"></self-uri><abstract><p>Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.</p></abstract></article-meta></front></article></istex:document></istex:metadataXml><mods version="3.6"><titleInfo><title>In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><partName>Paper</partName></titleInfo><titleInfo type="alternative" contentType="CDATA"><title>In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees</title><partName>Paper</partName></titleInfo><name type="personal" displayLabel="corresp"><namePart type="given">Elizabeth</namePart><namePart type="family">Fistein</namePart><affiliation>General Practice Education Group, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</affiliation><affiliation>E-mail: ecf22@medschl.cam.ac.uk</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><name type="personal"><namePart type="given">Sally</namePart><namePart type="family">Quilligan</namePart><affiliation>Office of the School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK</affiliation><role><roleTerm type="text">author</roleTerm></role></name><typeOfResource>text</typeOfResource><genre type="research-article" displayLabel="research-article" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://content-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XTP-1JC4F85T-7">research-article</genre><originInfo><publisher>BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and Institute of Medical Ethics</publisher><dateIssued encoding="w3cdtf">2012-04</dateIssued><dateCreated encoding="w3cdtf">2011-11-02</dateCreated><copyrightDate encoding="w3cdtf">2011</copyrightDate></originInfo><language><languageTerm type="code" authority="iso639-2b">eng</languageTerm><languageTerm type="code" authority="rfc3066">en</languageTerm></language><abstract>Research ethics review is an important process, designed to protect participants in medical research. However, it is increasingly criticised for failing to meet its aims. Here, two researchers reflect on their experiences of applying for ethical approval of observational research in clinical settings. They highlight some problems faced by reviewers and researchers and propose a two-stage ethical review process that would alert researchers to the committee's concerns and allow them to give a more considered response.</abstract><relatedItem type="host"><titleInfo><title>Journal of Medical Ethics</title></titleInfo><titleInfo type="abbreviated"><title>J Med Ethics</title></titleInfo><genre type="journal" authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://publication-type.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/JMC-0GLKJH51-B">journal</genre><subject><genre>hwp-journal-coll</genre><topic>Unlocked</topic></subject><identifier type="ISSN">0306-6800</identifier><identifier type="eISSN">1473-4257</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID">jme</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-hwp">medethics</identifier><identifier type="PublisherID-nlm-ta">J Med Ethics</identifier><part><date>2012</date><detail type="volume"><caption>vol.</caption><number>38</number></detail><detail type="issue"><caption>no.</caption><number>4</number></detail><extent unit="pages"><start>224</start></extent></part></relatedItem><identifier type="istex">7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1</identifier><identifier type="ark">ark:/67375/NVC-2MT5BZMJ-Q</identifier><identifier type="DOI">10.1136/medethics-2011-100124</identifier><identifier type="href">medethics-38-224.pdf</identifier><identifier type="ArticleID">medethics-2011-100124</identifier><identifier type="PMID">22048853</identifier><identifier type="local">medethics;38/4/224</identifier><accessCondition type="use and reproduction" contentType="open-access">This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non commercial and is otherwise in compliance with the license. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/legalcode.</accessCondition><recordInfo><recordContentSource authority="ISTEX" authorityURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr" valueURI="https://loaded-corpus.data.istex.fr/ark:/67375/XBH-7M42M2QJ-2">bmj</recordContentSource><recordOrigin>© 2012, Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.</recordOrigin></recordInfo></mods><json:item><extension>json</extension><original>false</original><mimetype>application/json</mimetype><uri>https://api.istex.fr/document/7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1/metadata/json</uri></json:item></metadata><serie></serie></istex></record>Pour manipuler ce document sous Unix (Dilib)
EXPLOR_STEP=$WICRI_ROOT/Wicri/Santé/explor/EdenteV2/Data/Istex/Corpus
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_STEP/biblio.hfd -nk 003F19 | SxmlIndent | more
Ou
HfdSelect -h $EXPLOR_AREA/Data/Istex/Corpus/biblio.hfd -nk 003F19 | SxmlIndent | more
Pour mettre un lien sur cette page dans le réseau Wicri
{{Explor lien
|wiki= Wicri/Santé
|area= EdenteV2
|flux= Istex
|étape= Corpus
|type= RBID
|clé= ISTEX:7F7ED1F46DF4FA6D4D6D02130A53B031A59C8DA1
|texte= In the lion's den? Experiences of interaction with research ethics committees
}}
| This area was generated with Dilib version V0.6.32. |  |