Ethics review and use of reminder letters in postal surveys: are current practices compromising an evidence-based approach?

Ward, Jeanette E

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2003.tb05044.x

Topics

Comment: Howell and his coauthors invite human research ethics committees (HRECs) to standardise their judgements about key aspects of methods, such as response-aiding strategies.1 Their balanced and thoughtful analysis of their experience in securing approval from two HRECs for reminders to enhance response rates to a postal community survey adds to previous concerns about decision-making by HRECs in Australia.2,3

Correspondence:

1. Howell SC, Quine S, Talley NJ. Ethics review and use of reminder letters in postal surveys: are current practices compromising an evidence-based approach? [letter]. Med J Aust 2003; 178: 43.<eMJA full text>
2. Ockham's razor. The ethics of ethics committees. Broadcast Sunday 14 July 2002. Transcript available at http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ockham/stories/s604355.htm (accessed 30 Aug 2002).
3. Komesaroff P. Clinical research in the emergency setting: the role of ethics committees. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 630-631. <eMJA full text>
4. Evans SJ. Good surveys guide. BMJ 1991; 302: 302-303.
5. Leeder S, quoted by Purcell C. Dispute continues over GP numbers. Med Observer 2001 Mar 1: 3.
6. Young JM, Ward JE. Improving survey response rates: a meta-analysis of the effectiveness of an advance telephone prompt from a medical peer [letter]. Med J Aust 1999; 170: 339.

Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.