IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v49y2015icp117-123.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Progress in centralised ethics review processes: Implications for multi-site health evaluations

Author

Listed:
  • Prosser, Brenton
  • Davey, Rachel
  • Gibson, Diane

Abstract

Increasingly, public sector programmes respond to complex social problems that intersect specific fields and individual disciplines. Such responses result in multi-site initiatives that can span nations, jurisdictions, sectors and organisations. The rigorous evaluation of public sector programmes is now a baseline expectation. For evaluations of large and complex multi-site programme initiatives, the processes of ethics review can present a significant challenge. However in recent years, there have been new developments in centralised ethics review processes in many nations. This paper provides the case study of an evaluation of a national, inter-jurisdictional, cross-sector, aged care health initiative and its encounters with Australian centralised ethics review processes. Specifically, the paper considers progress against the key themes of a previous five-year, five nation study (Fitzgerald and Phillips, 2006), which found that centralised ethics review processes would save time, money and effort, as well as contribute to more equitable workloads for researchers and evaluators. The paper concludes with insights for those charged with refining centralised ethics review processes, as well as recommendations for future evaluators of complex multi-site programme initiatives.

Suggested Citation

  • Prosser, Brenton & Davey, Rachel & Gibson, Diane, 2015. "Progress in centralised ethics review processes: Implications for multi-site health evaluations," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 117-123.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:117-123
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.12.021
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718915000026
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2014.12.021?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Prosser, Brenton & Clark, Shannon & Davey, Rachel & Parker, Rhian, 2013. "Developing a public health policy-research nexus: An evaluation of Nurse Practitioner models in aged care," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 55-63.
    2. Commission, Productivity, 2011. "Caring for older Australians," Inquiry Reports, Productivity Commission, Government of Australia, number 53.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Necmi Avkiran & Alan McCrystal, 2014. "Intertemporal analysis of organizational productivity in residential aged care networks: scenario analyses for setting policy targets," Health Care Management Science, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 113-125, June.
    2. Nguyen, Ha Trong & Connelly, Luke Brian, 2014. "The effect of unpaid caregiving intensity on labour force participation: Results from a multinomial endogenous treatment model," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 115-122.
    3. Burgess, Teresa & Braunack-Mayer, Annette & Crawford, Gregory B. & Beilby, Justin, 2014. "Australian health policy and end of life care for people with chronic disease: An analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 60-67.
    4. Lindy King & Ann Harrington & Ecushla Linedale & Elizabeth Tanner, 2018. "A mixed methods thematic review: Health‐related decision‐making by the older person," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(7-8), pages 1327-1343, April.
    5. Travers, Max & Liu, Edgar & Cook, Peta & Osborne, Caroline & Jacobs, Keith & Aminpour, Fatemeh & Dwyer, Zack, 2022. "Business models, consumer experiences and regulation of retirement villages," SocArXiv mb2vp, Center for Open Science.
    6. Kate M. Gunn & Julie Luker & Rama Ramanathan & Xiomara Skrabal Ross & Amanda Hutchinson & Elisabeth Huynh & Ian Olver, 2021. "Choosing and Managing Aged Care Services from Afar: What Matters to Australian Long-Distance Care Givers," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-17, December.
    7. Alice Tran & Kim-Huong Nguyen & Len Gray & Tracy Comans, 2019. "A Systematic Literature Review of Efficiency Measurement in Nursing Homes," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-18, June.
    8. Margaret Adams & Glenn Gardner & Patsy Yates, 2017. "Investigating nurse practitioners in the private sector: a theoretically informed research protocol," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(11-12), pages 1608-1620, June.
    9. Genevieve Knight & Zhang Wei, 2015. "Isolating the Determinants of Temporary Agency Worker Use by Firms: An Analysis of Temporary Agency Workers in Australian Aged Care," Australian Journal of Labour Economics (AJLE), Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC), Curtin Business School, vol. 18(2), pages 205-237.
    10. Michael Woods & Grant Corderoy, 2021. "Improving Consumer‐Centred Aged Care: Addressing Issues of Sustainability, Service Integration and Market Incentives," Australian Economic Review, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, vol. 54(2), pages 266-274, June.
    11. Temitope Olasunkanmi‐Alimi & Kristin Natalier & Monique Mulholland, 2022. "Everyday racism and the denial of migrant African women’s good caring in aged care work," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(4), pages 1082-1094, July.
    12. Huw Brokensha & Andrew Taylor & Tony Barnes, 2017. "Changing Australia’s Age Pension Qualification Age: Modelling Differential Effects by Race," Population Research and Policy Review, Springer;Southern Demographic Association (SDA), vol. 36(2), pages 203-229, April.
    13. Therese Jefferson & Siobhan Austen & Rhonda Sharp & Rachel Ong & Gill Lewin & Valerie Adams, 2014. "Mixed-methods research: What’s in it for economists?," The Economic and Labour Relations Review, , vol. 25(2), pages 290-305, June.
    14. Moore, Corey B., 2021. "Consumer directed care aged care reforms in Australia since 2009: A retrospective policy analysis," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(5), pages 577-581.
    15. Shang Wu & Hazel Bateman & Ralph Stevens & Susan Thorp, 2022. "Flexible insurance for long‐term care: A study of stated preferences," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 89(3), pages 823-858, September.
    16. Valerija Rogelj & David Bogataj & Marija Bogataj & Francisco Campuzano-Bolarín & Eneja Drobež, 2023. "The Role of Housing in Sustainable European Long-Term Care Systems," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(4), pages 1-27, February.
    17. Belinda Jessup & Tony Barnett & Kehinde Obamiro & Merylin Cross & Edwin Mseke, 2021. "Review of the Health, Welfare and Care Workforce in Tasmania, Australia: 2011–2016," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-15, June.
    18. Simon Eckermann & Lyn Phillipson & Richard Fleming, 2019. "Re-design of Aged Care Environments is Key to Improved Care Quality and Cost Effective Reform of Aged and Health System Care," Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, Springer, vol. 17(2), pages 127-130, April.
    19. Peta Harbour & Laurie Grealish, 2018. "Health literacy of the baby boomer generation and the implications for nursing," Journal of Clinical Nursing, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(19-20), pages 3472-3481, October.
    20. Mijanur Rahman & Jimmy T. Efird & Hal Kendig & Julie E. Byles, 2019. "Patterns of home and community care use among older participants in the Australian Longitudinal Study of Women’s Health," European Journal of Ageing, Springer, vol. 16(3), pages 293-303, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:49:y:2015:i:c:p:117-123. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.