Ethics review of multisite studies: The difficult case of community-based Indigenous health research

  • Studdert D
  • Vu T
  • Fox S
 et al. 
  • 17


    Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
  • 15


    Citations of this article.


Researchers have longstanding concerns about the logistical and administrative burdens posed by ethics review of multisite studies involving human participants. Centralised ethics review, in which approval by one committee has authority across multiple sites, is widely touted as a strategy for streamlining the process. The Harmonisation of Multi-centre Ethical Review (HoMER) project is currently developing such a system for Australia. It is unclear how centralised review will work for multisite Indigenous health research, where the views of local stakeholders are important and community consultation is mandatory. Our recent experience in conducting the National Indigenous Eye Health Survey (NIEHS) shows how elaborate the current ethics approval and community consultation processes can be, and points to several lessons and ideas to guide pending reforms.

Get free article suggestions today

Mendeley saves you time finding and organizing research

Sign up here
Already have an account ?Sign in

Find this document


  • David M. Studdert

  • Tamara M. Vu

  • Sarah S. Fox

  • Ian P. Anderson

  • Jill E. Keeffe

  • Hugh R. Taylor

Cite this document

Choose a citation style from the tabs below

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free