ArticlePublic health in practice (Oxford, England)2025
Local authorities need tailored research ethics processes to support research capacity building.
Article in Public health in practice (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A local-authority specific definition of research: Results from a Delphi study.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Developing healthy attitudes to evidence through the health determinants research collaborations (HDRCs).Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Developing healthy attitudes to evidence through the Health Determinants Research Collaborations (HDRCs).Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
- Letter to editor regarding: "Local authorities need tailored research ethics processes to support research capacity building".Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Local authorities (LAs) are increasingly aiming to become more research active. Research ethics review is an important prerequisite of high-quality research. It is not clear what a LA ethics review process can (or should) look like, or whether it is needed in addition to external review processes. We aim to describe the scope and purpose of research ethics processes in LAs across England, and factors that are salient to their design. Study design: Qualitative interview study. Methods: Staff from 15 LAs in England were recruited to describe their research ethics process using purposeful and snowball sampling. One-hour interviews were conducted using a topic guide with five scenarios, drawn from LA projects. Interview transcripts were thematically analysed using a consensus building process among the research team. Results: Factors salient to the design of research ethics processes in LAs included: definitions of research, research ownership, and the distinct relationship LAs have with research participants. A typology with four models is used to describe existing processes. These models are: Discussion: Research ethics processes in LAs need to reflect various LA approaches to what constitutes research, who owns the research process, and how a LAs relationship with research participants may vary from other settings. As LAs continue articulating what research means in their setting, they need support and guidance to establish research ethics processes that enable research activity, while simultaneously being sensitive to the level of research readiness and distinct LA need.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.