15 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Hugh Davies [12]Hugh Sykes Davies [3]Hugh T. Davies [1]
  1.  8
    UK Research Ethics Committee’s review of the global first SARS-CoV-2 human infection challenge studies.Hugh Davies - 2023 - Journal of Medical Ethics 49 (5):322-324.
    This paper describes the UK Research Ethics Committee’s (REC) preparations and review of the global first SARS-CoV-2 human infection challenge studies. To frame our review, we used the WHO guidance and our UK Health Research Authority ethical review framework. The WHO criteria covered most issues we were concerned about, but we would recommend one further criterion directing RECs to consider alternative research designs. Could research questions be equally well answered by less intrusive studies? The committee met virtually, ensuring broad representation (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  2.  7
    Reshaping the review of consent so we might improve participant choice.Hugh Davies - 2021 - Sage Publications Ltd: Research Ethics 18 (1):3-12.
    Research Ethics, Volume 18, Issue 1, Page 3-12, January 2022. Consent is one necessary foundation for ethical research and it’s one of the research ethics committee’s major roles to ensure that the consent process meets acceptable standards. Although on Oxford ‘A’ REC we’ve been impressed by the thought and work put into this aspect of research ethics, we’ve continued to have concerns about the suitability and effectiveness of consent processes in supporting decision making, particularly for clinical trials. There’s poor understanding (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  3.  16
    Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (II) – helping people decide.Hugh Davies, Rosie Munday, Maeve O’Reilly, Catriona Gilmour Hamilton, Arzhang Ardahan, Simon E. Kolstoe & Katie Gillies - 2023 - Research Ethics 19 (4):466-473.
    Research consent processes must provide potential participants with the necessary information to help them decide if they wish to join a study. On the Oxford ‘A’ Research Ethics Committee we’ve found that current research proposals mostly provide adequate detail (even if not in an easily comprehensible format), but often fail to support decision making, a view supported by published evidence. In a previous paper, we described how consent might be structured, and here we develop the concept of an Information and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  4.  30
    Forthcoming practical framework for ethics committees and researchers on post-trial access to the trial intervention and healthcare.Neema Sofaer, Penney Lewis & Hugh Davies - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (4):217-218.
    When research concludes, post-trial access to the trial intervention or standard healthcare can be crucial for participants who are ill such as those in resource-poor countries with inadequate healthcare, British participants testing ‘last-chance drugs’ unavailable on the National Health Service and underinsured US participants. Yet, many researchers are unclear about their obligations regarding the post-trial period, and many research ethics committees do not know what to require of researchers. Consequences include participants who reasonably expect but lack PTA to the trial (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   5 citations  
  5. Care after research: a framework for NHS RECs.Neema Sofaer, Penney Lewis & Hugh Davies - 2012 - Health Research Authority.
    Care after research is for participants after they have finished the study. Often it is NHS-provided healthcare for the medical condition that the study addresses. Sometimes it includes the study intervention, whether funded and supplied by the study sponsor, NHS or other party. The NHS has the primary responsibility for care after research. However, researchers are responsible at least for explaining and justifying what will happen to participants once they have finished. RECs are responsible for considering the arrangements. There are (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  42
    A syllabus for research ethics committees: training needs and resources in different European countries.Ester Cairoli, Hugh T. Davies, Jürgen Helm, Georg Hook, Petra Knupfer & Frank Wells - 2012 - Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (3):184-186.
    This paper reports a European Forum for Good Clinical Practice workshop held in 2011 to consider a research ethics committee training syllabus, subsequent training needs and resources. The syllabus that was developed was divided into four competencies: committee working; scientific method; ethical analysis and the regulatory framework. Appropriate training needs for each, with possible resources, were discussed. Lack of funding for training was reported as a major problem but affordable alternatives were debated. Strengths and weaknesses of this approach were discussed (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   4 citations  
  7.  9
    Reshaping consent so we might improve participant choice (III) – How is the research participant’s understanding currently checked and how might we improve this process?Hugh Davies, Simon E. Kolstoe & Anthony Lockett - forthcoming - Research Ethics.
    Valid consent requires the potential research participant understands the information provided. We examined current practice in 50 proposed Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products to determine how this understanding is checked. The majority of the proposals ( n = 44) indicated confirmation of understanding would take place during an interactive conversation between the researcher and potential participant, containing questions to assess and establish understanding. Yet up until now, research design and review have not focussed upon this, concentrating more on written (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. Helping Research Ethics Committees Share Their Experience, Learn from Review and Develop Consensus: An Observational Study of the UK Shared Ethical Debate.Peter Heasman, Alain Gregoire & Hugh Davies - 2011 - Research Ethics 7 (1):13-18.
    This project is based on the unique ‘Shared ethical debate’ between NHS RECs in the UK in which one research application is reviewed by several research ethics committees. This programme is now in its 6th cycle. In the fifth cycle a prison- based research project was reviewed by each of three NHS RECs that are ‘ flagged’ for such research and their debate and discussions were observed directly by one researcher who recorded the committee processes and the issues raised in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. Atención después de la investigación: un marco para los comités de ética de investigación del National Health Service (NHS) (borrador versión 8.0).Neema Sofaer, Penny Lewis & Hugh Davies - 2012 - Perspectivas Bioéticas 17 (33):47-70.
    Resumen Ésta es la primera traducción al español de las guías “Atención después de la investigación: un marco para los comités de ética de investigación del National Health Service (NHS) (borrador versión 8.0)”. El documento afirma que existe una fuerte obligación moral de garantizar que los participantes enfermos de un estudio clínico hagan una transición después del estudio hacia una atención de la salud apropiada. Con “atención de la salud apropiada” se hace referencia al acceso para los participantes a la (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  23
    Standards for Research Ethics Committees: Purpose, Problems and Possibilities.Hugh Davies - 2008 - Research Ethics 4 (4):152-157.
    This paper reports an initiative from the National Research Ethics Service and research ethics committees in the UK to develop a shared ethical debate between committees and to promote standards of ethical review, exploring the problems and practicalities of such an approach.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  18
    The Importance of Both Research and its Proper Review: A Historical Perspective.Hugh Davies - 2006 - Research Ethics 2 (2):40-46.
    It is self-evident that medical treatments have improved in recent centuries. Through a historical analysis this article demonstrates that experimental research has underpinned the success of modern medical therapy, but it also shows that there have been examples of unethical research and that these can still be found, even today. Whilst it is crucial that research continues, it is equally important that there is appropriate review. Although the health of research itself is central to our well-being, the community needs to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12.  38
    Prisoners as research participants: current practice and attitudes in the UK.Anna Charles, Annette Rid, Hugh Davies & Heather Draper - 2016 - Journal of Medical Ethics 42 (4):246-252.
    The use of prisoners as research participants is controversial. Efforts to protect them in response to past exploitation and abuse have led to strict regulations and reluctance to involve them as participants. Hence, prisoners are routinely denied the opportunity to participate in research. In the absence of comprehensive information regarding prisoners’ current involvement in research, we examined UK prisoners’ involvement through review of research applications to the UK National Research Ethics Service. We found that prisoners have extremely limited access to (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13.  16
    How Should We Teach Research Ethics?Hugh Davies - 2010 - Research Ethics 6 (2):43-47.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  6
    The English mind.Hugh Sykes Davies - 1964 - Cambridge [Eng.]: University Press. Edited by Basil Willey & George Watson.
    This is not a random collection of essays, but a book on a single theme. Written by separate hands, mainly by literary critics at Cambridge, it was planned as a whole and executed with a common purpose: to produce the first literary study of the English moralists of the seventeenth century to the beginning of the twentieth. The authors share two convictions: they believe that the study of literature demands an understanding of whatever moral philosophy is embodied in it; and (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15. The English Mind Studies in the English Moralists Presented to Basil Willey.Hugh Sykes Davies, Basil Willey & George Grimes Watson - 1964 - University Press.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark