Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorHumphreys, Stephen
dc.contributor.authorThomas, Hilary
dc.contributor.authorMartin, Robyn
dc.date.accessioned2016-04-04T11:43:49Z
dc.date.available2016-04-04T11:43:49Z
dc.date.issued2014-11-02
dc.identifier.citationHumphreys , S , Thomas , H & Martin , R 2014 , ' Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees ' Accountability in Research , vol. 21 , no. 6 , pp. 366-388 . https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891944
dc.identifier.issn0898-9621
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 9857161
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: fdf6f98c-87f6-4322-9b17-69fa9a425d22
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84899764300
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/16897
dc.descriptionStephen Humphreys, Hilary Thomas and Robyn Martin, ‘Medical Dominance within Research Ethics Committees’, Accountability in Research, Vol 21(6): 366-388, first published online 1 May 2014. The version of record is available online via doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891944 Published by Taylor and Francis.
dc.description.abstractQualitative research is reported which explores the perceptions of members of the U.K.’s independent Phase I ethics committees (IECs) about key issues identified following a literature review. Audio-recorded interviews were conducted with ten expert and ten lay members from all IECs except the one to which the lead author was attached. Transcripts were thematically analyzed following a broadly hermeneutical approach. The findings—dealing with such matters as recruitment strategies and length of service; attitudes towards member categories, published ethics guidelines, and the adequacy of insurance; levels of training and views on achieving a recognised level of competence—have an intrinsic interest, but it is when the findings are considered collectively using Freidson’s theory of professional dominance that they reveal the influence the medical profession can have in shaping ethics reviewen
dc.format.extent22
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofAccountability in Research
dc.subjectmedical dominance
dc.subjectmember categories
dc.subjectmember perceptions
dc.subjectprofessional dominance
dc.subjectresearch ethics committees
dc.subjectroles
dc.titleMedical Dominance within Research Ethics Committeesen
dc.contributor.institutionDepartment of Adult Nursing and Primary Care
dc.contributor.institutionCentre for Research in Public Health and Community Care
dc.contributor.institutionNursing, Midwifery and Social Work
dc.contributor.institutionPatient Experience and Public Involvement
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Health and Social Work
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.relation.schoolSchool of Health and Social Work
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2014.891944
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.rights.accesstypeclosedAccess


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record