Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey
Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; probl...
Uloženo v:
| Vydáno v: | BMC public health Ročník 23; číslo 1; s. 1119 - 9 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autoři: | , , , , , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Vydáno: |
London
BioMed Central
12.06.2023
BioMed Central Ltd Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Témata: | |
| ISSN: | 1471-2458, 1471-2458 |
| On-line přístup: | Získat plný text |
| Tagy: |
Přidat tag
Žádné tagy, Buďte první, kdo vytvoří štítek k tomuto záznamu!
|
| Abstract | Background
It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.
Methods
Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.
Results
Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.
Conclusions
Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.
Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.
Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.
Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. BackgroundIt has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.MethodsOnline questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.ResultsResponses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.ConclusionsConsultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. Keywords: Health services research, Ethics, Governance, Online survey It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.BACKGROUNDIt has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements.Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.METHODSOnline questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives.Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.RESULTSResponses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes.Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.CONCLUSIONSConsultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. Abstract Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred. |
| ArticleNumber | 1119 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Bower, Peter Checkland, Katherine Ballo, Rokia Khanom, Ashrafunnesa Snooks, Helen Ellins, Jo Locock, Louise Walshe, Kieran Ford, Gary A |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Helen surname: Snooks fullname: Snooks, Helen email: H.A.Snooks@Swansea.ac.uk organization: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University – sequence: 2 givenname: Ashrafunnesa surname: Khanom fullname: Khanom, Ashrafunnesa organization: Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Science, Swansea University – sequence: 3 givenname: Rokia surname: Ballo fullname: Ballo, Rokia organization: Nuffield Trust – sequence: 4 givenname: Peter surname: Bower fullname: Bower, Peter organization: Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester – sequence: 5 givenname: Katherine surname: Checkland fullname: Checkland, Katherine organization: Division of Population Health, Health Services Research and Primary Care, University of Manchester – sequence: 6 givenname: Jo surname: Ellins fullname: Ellins, Jo organization: Health Services Management Centre, School of Social Policy, University of Birmingham – sequence: 7 givenname: Gary A surname: Ford fullname: Ford, Gary A organization: Oxford University, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust – sequence: 8 givenname: Louise surname: Locock fullname: Locock, Louise organization: Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen – sequence: 9 givenname: Kieran surname: Walshe fullname: Walshe, Kieran organization: HSR UK c/o Nuffield Trust |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9ks1u1DAUhSNURH_gBVggS2zYpPgnsT2rqqoKVFRiQ9eW49xMXDL2YCejznvxgNyZaWmnQpUXca7Pd6x7fY6LgxADFMV7Rk8Z0_JzZlzrWUm5KJmkTJTrV8URqxQreVXrgyf7w-I451tKmdI1f1McCiWontX0qPhzlUkzJbCTS9atSQM-zLGSR2iJDyRBBptcT2DsvcvEhpbM4wpSsMEB6WIiPdhh7EmGtPIO8iOC-NgDufl-Ri7vlpA8hM35xgL_8hLc6FdbYBnT5r5mTfJof0EfhxYFSKc4zXskSAyDD0DylFawflu87uyQ4d3996S4-XL58-Jbef3j69XF-XXpJNVjqbhgVdfqTs9EZRlA23ZWisZpKhsuFehWUCksdM5CLaXocC6qk8xKWiurxElxtfNto701y-QXNq1NtN5sCzHNjU2jdwMYLRS0tHFKQl3V1FktBdMMOJ_RjvIKvc52XsupWUDrIIzJDnum-yfB9wYnbRjltVaKosOne4cUf0-QR7Pw2cEw2ABxyoZrXtf4xpqh9OMz6W2c8MmGrQq9dMWeqOYWO_Chi3ix25iac1VzzWYzJlF1-h8VrhYW3mEiO4_1PeDD007_tfgQOhToncClmHOCzjg_2tHHTeN-wI7NJt9ml2-D-TbbfJs1ovwZ-uD-IiR2UEZxmEN6nMYL1F-JWhAx |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s11019_025_10280_9 crossref_primary_10_1002_ijgo_70374 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_clinph_2024_03_039 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0261444823000411 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_079581 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_024_11886_0 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1136/bmj.332.7533.109 10.1186/1478-4505-13-1 10.1007/BF03403759 10.1186/1471-2458-8-415 10.1186/s12913-016-1292-y 10.3399/bjgp20X712793 10.1186/1472-6963-10-124 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s) 2023 2023. The Author(s). COPYRIGHT 2023 BioMed Central Ltd. 2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s) 2023 – notice: 2023. The Author(s). – notice: COPYRIGHT 2023 BioMed Central Ltd. – notice: 2023. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License. |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7T2 7X7 7XB 88E 8C1 8FE 8FG 8FI 8FJ 8FK ABJCF ABUWG AEUYN AFKRA AN0 ATCPS AZQEC BENPR BGLVJ BHPHI C1K CCPQU COVID DWQXO FYUFA GHDGH GNUQQ HCIFZ K9. L6V M0S M1P M7S PATMY PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PKEHL PPXIY PQEST PQGLB PQQKQ PQUKI PRINS PTHSS PYCSY 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12889-023-16013-y |
| DatabaseName | SpringerOpen CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed ProQuest Central (Corporate) Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive) Health & Medical Collection ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016) Medical Database (Alumni Edition) Public Health Database ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Hospital Premium Collection Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition) ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016) Materials Science & Engineering Collection ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Central UK/Ireland British Nursing Database Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Central Technology Collection Natural Science Collection Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest One Community College Coronavirus Research Database ProQuest Central Korea Health Research Premium Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest Central Student SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Engineering Collection Health & Medical Collection (Alumni) Medical Database Engineering Database Environmental Science Database ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE) ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Academic (retired) ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition ProQuest Central China Engineering Collection Environmental Science Collection MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals (WRLC) |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) Publicly Available Content Database ProQuest Central Student Technology Collection ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New) ProQuest Central Essentials ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni) ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition) SciTech Premium Collection ProQuest One Community College ProQuest One Health & Nursing ProQuest Central China Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management ProQuest Central ProQuest One Applied & Life Sciences ProQuest One Sustainability ProQuest Health & Medical Research Collection ProQuest Engineering Collection Health Research Premium Collection Health and Medicine Complete (Alumni Edition) Natural Science Collection ProQuest Central Korea Health & Medical Research Collection Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection Health & Safety Science Abstracts ProQuest Central (New) ProQuest Medical Library (Alumni) Engineering Collection Engineering Database ProQuest Public Health ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition British Nursing Index with Full Text Coronavirus Research Database ProQuest Hospital Collection ProQuest Technology Collection Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni) ProQuest SciTech Collection ProQuest Hospital Collection (Alumni) Environmental Science Collection ProQuest Health & Medical Complete ProQuest Medical Library ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition Materials Science & Engineering Collection Environmental Science Database ProQuest One Academic ProQuest One Academic (New) ProQuest Central (Alumni) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE Publicly Available Content Database MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: PIMPY name: Publicly Available Content Database url: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine Public Health |
| EISSN | 1471-2458 |
| EndPage | 9 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_837ed0bc76e5450ca863181e2290f024 PMC10258770 A752819916 37308950 10_1186_s12889_023_16013_y |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | United Kingdom United Kingdom--UK England |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: United Kingdom – name: England – name: United Kingdom--UK |
| GrantInformation_xml | – fundername: Chief Scientist Office grantid: HSRU2 |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 2XV 44B 53G 5VS 6J9 6PF 7X7 7XC 88E 8C1 8FE 8FG 8FH 8FI 8FJ A8Z AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL ABDBF ABJCF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACIHN ACIWK ACPRK ACUHS ADBBV ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AEUYN AFKRA AFPKN AFRAH AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AN0 AOIJS ATCPS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BGLVJ BHPHI BMC BNQBC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EAS EBD EBLON EBS EMB EMK EMOBN ESTFP ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HCIFZ HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR ITC KQ8 L6V M1P M48 M7S M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PATMY PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQGLB PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PTHSS PUEGO PYCSY RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SMD SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS U2A UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB AAYXX AFFHD CITATION ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 3V. 7T2 7XB 8FK AZQEC C1K COVID DWQXO GNUQQ K9. PKEHL PQEST PQUKI PRINS 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c608t-72314fd8f8934a1eeddfa63bc806b267e8d3063aefcae5663f3737f61a6057a73 |
| IEDL.DBID | RSV |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 7 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=001007634100007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1471-2458 |
| IngestDate | Fri Oct 03 12:50:32 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 02:06:53 EST 2025 Mon Sep 08 07:37:12 EDT 2025 Sat Oct 11 05:52:37 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 11 10:19:38 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 17:17:33 EST 2025 Mon Jul 21 06:07:06 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 02:07:22 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 19:36:58 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:29:03 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Ethics Governance Health services research Online survey |
| Language | English |
| License | 2023. The Author(s). Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c608t-72314fd8f8934a1eeddfa63bc806b267e8d3063aefcae5663f3737f61a6057a73 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 14 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://link.springer.com/10.1186/s12889-023-16013-y |
| PMID | 37308950 |
| PQID | 2827038411 |
| PQPubID | 44782 |
| PageCount | 9 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_837ed0bc76e5450ca863181e2290f024 pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10258770 proquest_miscellaneous_2825500181 proquest_journals_2827038411 gale_infotracmisc_A752819916 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A752819916 pubmed_primary_37308950 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12889_023_16013_y crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_023_16013_y springer_journals_10_1186_s12889_023_16013_y |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2023-06-12 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2023-06-12 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2023 text: 2023-06-12 day: 12 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | BMC public health |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Public Health |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Public Health |
| PublicationYear | 2023 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd Springer Nature B.V BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: Springer Nature B.V – name: BMC |
| References | 16013_CR5 DC Taylor-Robinson (16013_CR8) 2008; 8 16013_CR6 16013_CR10 16013_CR7 16013_CR13 16013_CR12 16013_CR1 16013_CR15 SR Hanney (16013_CR2) 2015; 13 16013_CR14 16013_CR3 16013_CR17 16013_CR4 16013_CR16 KN Lohr (16013_CR9) 2002; 37 MR Kingston (16013_CR11) 2020; 70 |
| References_xml | – ident: 16013_CR16 – ident: 16013_CR17 – ident: 16013_CR10 doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7533.109 – volume: 13 start-page: 1 year: 2015 ident: 16013_CR2 publication-title: Health Res Policy Syst doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-13-1 – ident: 16013_CR12 – ident: 16013_CR13 – ident: 16013_CR14 – ident: 16013_CR7 doi: 10.1007/BF03403759 – volume: 37 start-page: 7 year: 2002 ident: 16013_CR9 publication-title: Health Serv Res – volume: 8 start-page: 415 year: 2008 ident: 16013_CR8 publication-title: BMC Public Health doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-415 – ident: 16013_CR1 doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1292-y – volume: 70 start-page: 740 year: 2020 ident: 16013_CR11 publication-title: Br Journal Gen Practice doi: 10.3399/bjgp20X712793 – ident: 16013_CR4 – ident: 16013_CR15 doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-10-124 – ident: 16013_CR3 – ident: 16013_CR5 – ident: 16013_CR6 |
| SSID | ssj0017852 |
| Score | 2.428509 |
| Snippet | Background
It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study... It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to... Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study... BackgroundIt has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study... Abstract Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous.... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 1119 |
| SubjectTerms | Affect Analysis Biostatistics Bureaucracy Environmental Health Epidemiology Ethical aspects Ethics Ethics, Research Evidence Gaps Frustration Governance Health care industry Health services Health Services Research Humans Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methods Online survey Patients Public Health Public involvement Qualitative research Questionnaires Research ethics Research methodology Research methods Surveys United Kingdom Vaccine |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals (WRLC) dbid: DOA link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV3daxQxEA9SfBBE_HZtlQiCD7p097Kb5J6kikVRig8W-hbyaQ9lW27vCvt_9Q90JsnedSvqi6-bzJJkJvORTH5DyEvHg5fCuDIAT8tG13VpXMtK8HRt7RhnzseqJV_E0ZE8OZl_vVLqC3PCEjxwWrh9CKC8q4wV3IOxr6yWHMSw9ohTHsDAoPYFr2cMpvL9gZDtbHwiI_l-D1oYU4NmrKw51jMYJmYoovX_rpOvGKXrCZPXbk2jMTq8S-5kL5IepNHfIzd8d5_cTkdwNL0sekAuP_XUYNL52i61Hajx8C_4ggecdNHRjPNzSn3Meae6c_R7LL2LkkDBm6XplSTts0LZkgA5eI70-PNbugVLTr843z7fRIIInO6oGSj4oT883nZBB5rrAwEFTWAdtF8vL_zwkBwffvj2_mOZizSUlldyVQpwEJvgZADHB1gNJtcFzZmxsuJmxoWXDqISpn2w2oPvyAITTAReawikhBbsEdnpzjr_hNDaGM5nVs5DIxvJ-dwaDmxGZgfQwnVB6pFnymYEcyyk8VPFSEZylfisgM8q8lkNBXm9oTlP-B1_7f0ORWHTE7G34weQSJUlUv1LIgvyCgVJoYaA4VmdHzrAJBFrSx2IFm8vwS8vyN6kJ-xsO20eRVFlzdIrCJFBScumhuV4sWlGSsyW6_zZOvaBwBOh2AryOEnuZkqw-pWct1VB5ESmJ3OetnSL04g7Dr5oK4UA0jej-G_H9edFffo_FnWX3Jrh9o1Vo_bIzmq59s_ITXuxWvTL53Hz_wJgNF6V priority: 102 providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – databaseName: ProQuest Central dbid: BENPR link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Lb9QwELZgywEJ8X4ECjISEgeIGidZ2zlVLWoFAq0qRKXerPjVrkDZJdmttP-LH8iM490lRfTCNfZEdjL-_Nkef0PIG8u9k0Lb1MM_TcuasVTbcZEC0zXMFrywLmQt-SImE3l2Vp3EDbcuhlWuMTEAtZ0Z3CPfg6UBOKcsGduf_0wxaxSersYUGjfJDiqVlSOyc3g0Ofm6OUcQcpyvr8pIvtcBGmOIUF6kjGNeg9VgOgqq_X9j8x-T09XAySunp2FSOr73v925T-5GOkoPev95QG645iG50-_l0f6K0iPy61NHNUavL01bmxXVDhoDT3CnlE4bGgWDLqgLwfO0biw9Dzl80aUo0GLaX7ekXUSmrQmYAwWlp5_36VZ1uX_FfHsPFA2CArulekWB0H53eGwGFWhMNAQWtFf9oN2yvXSrx-T0-Ojbh49pzPaQGp7JRSqAaZbeSg8MCnwG5m7ra15oIzOucy6ctLC8KWrnTe2AhBa-EIXwnNWwIhO1KJ6QUTNr3DNCmdac50ZWvpSl5Lwymud5JZnLPcA5Swhb_3RlohQ6ZuT4ocKSSHLVO4oCR1HBUdQqIe82NvNeCOTa2ofoS5uaKOIdHszacxUxQclCOJtpI7gDHpuZWnJAWGhkXmUeuFNC3qInKoQaaJ6p440J6CSKdqkDMcZjUCD4Cdkd1ASIMMPitROqCFGd2npgQl5vitESw-4aN1uGOrCCRU23hDztXX_TJfj6mazGWULkYFAM-jwsaaYXQcAcSO1YCgGm79fjZ9uuf3_U59d34wW5nePIDomldslo0S7dS3LLXC6mXfsqIsNvqApu_Q priority: 102 providerName: ProQuest |
| Title | Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12889-023-16013-y https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37308950 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2827038411 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2825500181 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC10258770 https://doaj.org/article/837ed0bc76e5450ca863181e2290f024 |
| Volume | 23 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos001007634100007&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: BioMed Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Engineering Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: M7S dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Environmental Science Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: PATMY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/environmentalscience providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Public Health Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: 8C1 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/publichealth providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2458 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017852 issn: 1471-2458 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20011201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bb9MwFD5iG0JIiMuAERiVkZB4gGhJ3NruE9qmTUywqtoYKk9WfNsqpnRq2kn9X_xAjp2kJeMiwUsebJ_Wl-PPxz43gNeGOSu4MrHDNY27eZrGyvRojJKuTg1l1NiQteQTHwzEaNQf1k5hZWPt3qgkA1KHbS3YTolI6s17MhqnzOckWKzBBh53wm_Hk9MvS90BF72scY_5LV3rCAqR-n_F458OpJvGkjc0puEgOnzwf0N4CPdrwZPsVpzyCG7ZYhPuHNeq9U24Vz3gkcov6TF8PyqJ8ibrcz3N9YIoi_-EJf55lIwLUkcJuiA2WMyTvDDkPCTu9XxEUBYmlY8lKWs4WpEgOcqd5Ozje7IKtVz9xNXK-dMThLDrhqgFQSn2m_W6MmxA6uxCSEGqUB-knE-v7eIJnB0efN7_ENcpHmLNEjGLOYqXXWeEQ7EJGQUPbONyRpUWCVMZ41YYvNPQ3DqdW5Q8qaOccsfSHK9hPOf0KawXk8I-A5IqxVimRd91RVcw1teKZRmyh80cYngaQdqsutR1_HOfhuNShnuQYLJaHonLI8PyyEUEb5c0V1X0j7-23vPMtGzpI3eHgsn0XNZAIAXl1iRKc2ZReE10LhjCKnYy6ycOBaYI3nhWlB5fsHs6r90kcJA-Upfc5T2v-0SpPoLtVkvEBd2ubphZ1rhUSrxgI8SLborT8WpZ7Sm9rV1hJ_PQBq-tPpBbBFsV7y-HhLOfiH4viUC0dkVrzO2aYnwRopajJNsTnCPpu2ZzrPr150l9_m_NX8DdzO-vkF1qG9Zn07l9Cbf19WxcTjuwxkc8fAV-xX7agY29g8HwpBPeYjre8vcUy4ZHx8OvnQArPwCrUG-8 |
| linkProvider | Springer Nature |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMw1V1Lb9QwEB6VLRJIiPcjUMBIIA4QNU_bOaCqPKqudrvaQyuVk0lsp12Bsstmtyh_ihM_kLGT7JIieuuBa-KJbOebmc-PmQF4qWiuOcuUm-M_daPU991MxaGLTFf6KqSh0rZqyZCNRvz4OBlvwM82FsZcq2xtojXUairNHvk2Lg0QnDzy_Z3Zd9dUjTKnq20JjRoWA139wCVb-a7_Ef_vqyDY-3T4Yd9tqgq4knp84TJkNFGueI6eGvuGPkLlKQ0zyT2aBZRprpBGh6nOZaqR7IR5yEKWUz9F5s9SFuJ3r8BmhGDnPdgc9w_Gn1fnFozHQRuaw-l2idbfXEkKQtenpo5C1XF_tkrA377gD2d4_qLmudNa6wT3bv1v03cbbjZ0m-zW-nEHNnRxF27Ue5WkDsG6B7_6JcnM7fylnKeyIpnGweMTsxNMJgVpEiKdEm2DA0haKHJiaxQblSFI-0kdTkrKxvKuRVAcKTY5GuyQdVbp-hOzdZyrEbAZ5hXJKoKE_as2x4LYgDSFlFCC1FlNSLmcn-nqPhxdysQ9gF4xLfQjIH6WURpInuQRjzilicxoECTc10GO7sp3wG9BJmST6t1UHPkm7JKPU1EDUyAwhQWmqBx4s5KZ1YlOLmz93mB31dIkKbcPpvMT0dg8wUOmlZdJRjXydE-mnKIHwU4GiZcjN3TgtUG-MKYUuyfTJiIEB2mSkoldFptjXlzAOLDVaYkmUHZft6AXjQkuxRrxDrxYvTaS5lphoadL2wZX6CZnnQMPa1VbDQln3-NJ7DnAO0rYGXP3TTE5tQnakbTHnDEUfdvq67pf_57UxxcP4zlc2z88GIphfzR4AtcDY1VsEa0t6C3mS_0UrsqzxaScP2usEoEvl63JvwGIpcyG |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1Zb9QwELagoAoJcZQrUMBISDzQqEmctZ0nVI4VVcuqEhT1zYqvdgXKrpLdSvlf_EDGdjbblENCvMYzu7E9Hn-TuRB6qak1nEkdW9jTOC_TNJZ6RGJAuirVhBJtfNeSQzaZ8JOT4uhCFr-Pdl-5JENOg6vSVC1259qGI87pbgNa1YX6ZCROqetP0F5F13LXNMjZ65-_9n4ExkfZKlXmt3yD68hX7f9VN1-4nC4HTl7ynvpLaXz7_6dzB93qACneCxJ0F10x1Rba_NS53LfQzfBhD4d8pXvox36DpQtlX6q6VC2WBv4VnrjPpnha4a560Bk2PpIel5XGp76hr5MvDBgZh9xL3HRqas0C7IBH8fHBG7wuwRx-Yr5OCnUMvhy7xrLFgG6_GedDAwLcdR0CDhxKgOBmWZ-b9j46Hn_48u5j3LV-iBVN-CJmADtzq7kFOAUCBBe5tiUlUvGEyowywzXYOqQ0VpUGECmxhBFmaVqCecZKRh6gjWpWmUcIp1JSmile2JznnNJCSZplBU9NZkG3pxFKVxIgVFcX3bXn-C68fcSpCNsjYHuE3x7RRuh1zzMPVUH-Sv3WCVZP6Sp6-wez-lR0CkJwwoxOpGLUAKhNVMkpqFt4yaxILACpCL1yYimc3oHXU2WXPgGTdBW8xB4bOZ8ooP0IbQ8oQV-o4fBKsEWnrxoBhjeofp6nsBwv-mHH6WLwKjNbehowZ12Btwg9DOegnxKsfsKLURIhPjghgzkPR6rpma9mDgh3xBkD1p3VQVm_158X9fG_kT9Hm0fvx-Jwf3LwBN3I3FHzDai20caiXpqn6Lo6X0yb-pnXHz8BgsJzrw |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Is+bureaucracy+being+busted+in+research+ethics+and+governance+for+health+services+research+in+the+UK%3F+Experiences+and+perspectives+reported+by+stakeholders+through+an+online+survey&rft.jtitle=BMC+public+health&rft.au=Snooks%2C+Helen&rft.au=Khanom%2C+Ashrafunnesa&rft.au=Ballo%2C+Rokia&rft.au=Bower%2C+Peter&rft.date=2023-06-12&rft.pub=BioMed+Central&rft.eissn=1471-2458&rft.volume=23&rft.issue=1&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12889-023-16013-y&rft.externalDocID=10_1186_s12889_023_16013_y |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2458&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2458&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2458&client=summon |