Public Health
Volume 118, Issue 5 , Pages 329-336 , July 2004

Local research ethics committees of the Mexican Institute of Social Security: results of a national survey

  • E Valdez-Martinez

      Affiliations

    • Division of Research Evaluation of the National Health Research Council, Mexico City, Mexico
    • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Address: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK. Tel.: +44-20-7927-2298
    • ,
  • J Garduño-Espinosa

      Affiliations

    • Division of Research Evaluation of the National Health Research Council, Mexico City, Mexico
    • ,
  • H Martinez-Salgado

      Affiliations

    • National Health Research Council, Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City, Mexico
    • ,
  • J.D.H Porter

      Affiliations

    • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, UK

Received 29 April 2003

References 

  1. British Medical Association. Research and experimentation on humans. In: The medical profession and human rights. London: Zed Books; 2001. p. 205–35.
  2. Shapiro HT. Ethical dilemmas and stem cell research. Science. 1999;285:2065
  3. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia: Código Sanitario de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Marzo 13, 1973).
  4. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia: Acuerdo mediante el cual se comunica que es obligación de los directores de los establecimientos en donde se efectúen investigaciones biomédicas construir una comisión de investigación. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Enero 26, 1982).
  5. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Secretaria de Salubridad y Asistencia: Ley General de Salud. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Febrero 7, 1984).
  6. Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Secretaria de Salud: Reglamento de la Ley General de Salud en materia de investigación para la salud. Diario Oficial de la Federación (Enero 6, 1987).
  7. National Council for Health Research, IMSS. Available from URLs: http://www.cis.gob.mx and http://www.imss.gob.mx (accessed 4 June 2002).
  8. Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social . Dirección de Prestaciones Médicas (Mexico). Manual de Investigación Médica en el IMSS. Mexico: Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social; 1999;
  9. Secretarı́a de Salud . Programa de Acción: Investigación en Salud. 2001; México, 2001. Available from URL: http://www.imss.gob.mx (accessed 4 June 2002)
  10. Abramson JH, Abramson ZH. Surveying the opinions of a panel: consensus methods. In:  Abramson JH,  Abramson ZH editor. Survey methods in community medicine. 5th ed. London: Churchill Livingstone; 1999;p. 233–238
  11. Eicher HG. Hazards of misguided ethics committees. Lancet. 1995;346:1115–1116
  12. Penn ZJ, Steer PJ. Local research ethics committees: hindrance or help?. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;102:1–2
  13. Harries UJ, Fentem PH, Tuxworth W, Hoinville GW. Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. J R Coll Phys Lond. 1994;28:150–154
  14. Rothman DJ. Ethics and human experimentation. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:1195–1199
  15. Levine RJ. The institutional review board. In:  Coughlin SS,  Beauchamp TL editor. Ethics and epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996;
  16. Achen T. Ethics committees and practical wisdom: some reflections on ethical decision-making. In:  Lebeer G editors. Ethical function in hospital ethics committees. Amsterdam: IOS Press; 2002;p. 161–171
  17. Hope T. Medical research needs lay involvement. J Med Ethics. 1998;24:291–292
  18. Edgar H, Rothman DJ. The institutional review board and beyond: future challenges to the ethics of human experimentation. Milbank Q. 1995;73:489–506
  19. Dudley H. Local research ethics committees. Attitudes of their members: is the critical factor. BMJ. 1995;311:1571
  20. Campbell AV. Clinical governance—watchword or buzzword?. J Med Ethics. 2001;27(Suppl I):i54–i56
  21. In:  Lonergan B editors. Understanding and being. An introduction and companion to insight. Toronto: the Edwing Mellen Press; 1987;
  22. Council for International Organisations of Medical Science (CIOMS) . International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: CIOMS; 1993;
  23. Benatar SR. Reflections and recommendations on research ethics in developing countries. Soc Sci Med. 2002;54:1131–1141
  24. Redshaw ME, Harris A, Baum JD. Research ethics committee audit: differences between committees. J Med Ethics. 1996;22:78–82
  25. Gilbert C, Fulford KWM, Parker C. Diversity in the practice of district ethics committees. BMJ. 1989;299:1437–1439
  26. World Medical Association . Recommendations guiding physicians in biomedical research involving human subjects (Declaration of Helsinki). 2000; Revision, Edinburgh. Available from URL: http://www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html (accessed 10 December 2002)
  27. Meade TW. The trouble with ethics committees. J R Coll Phys Lond. 1994;28:102–104
  28. Dent NJ, Sweatman JF. Can non-regulations audit independent ethic committees (IEC), and if so, how?. Qual Assur. 2002;9:43–54
  29. Harries UJ, Fentem PH, Tuxworth W, Hoinville GW. Local research ethics committees. Widely differing responses to a national survey protocol. J R Coll Phys Lond. 1994;28:150–154
  30. Black N, Thompson E. Obstacles to medical audit: British doctors speak. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36:849–856
  31. Power M. The audit society. Rituals of verification. New York: Oxford University Press; 2002;
  32. European Forum for Good Clinical Practice . European guidelines for auditing independent ethics committees. 2001; Available from URL: http://www.efgcp.org (accessed 23 October 2003)
  33. World Health Organization . Surveying and evaluating ethical review practices. Geneva: WHO; 2002;

PII: S0033-3506(03)00261-0

doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2003.10.013

Public Health
Volume 118, Issue 5 , Pages 329-336 , July 2004

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution