Ethical review boards are poor advocates for patient perspectives

article

Ethical review boards are poor advocates for patient perspectives is …
instance of (P31):
scholarly articleQ13442814

External links are
P356DOI10.1177/1747016113508948

P50authorSofia K. SporrongQ39963248
P2093author name stringMats G Hansson
Malin Masterton
Tobias Renberg
P2860cites workHuman Tissue and ‘the Public’: The Case of Childhood Cancer Tumour BankingQ28816171
Public engagement as a means of restoring public trust in science--hitting the notes, but missing the music?Q30354712
Relation between agendas of the research community and the research consumerQ33961168
How effective are expert patient (lay led) education programmes for chronic disease?Q35843628
Warranted concerns, warranted outlooks: a focus group study of public understandings of genetic researchQ35937346
Public knowledge and public trustQ36495123
European League Against Rheumatism recommendations for the inclusion of patient representatives in scientific projects.Q37831716
Attitudes to research ethical committeesQ40273383
Attitudes to biotechnology: estimating the opinions of a better-informed public.Q45856925
Different views on ethics: how animal ethics is situated in a committee culture.Q50750044
Rationalising public participation in the health service: the case of research ethics committees.Q53322955
Parents’ Perspectives on Research Involving ChildrenQ57252763
Unruly ethics: on the difficulties of a bottom-up approach to ethics in the field of genomicsQ58051206
P433issue3
P921main subjectmedical ethicsQ237151
ethical analysisQ98139384
P304page(s)169-181
P577publication date2014-06-27
P1433published inResearch Ethics ReviewQ15762703
P1476titleEthical review boards are poor advocates for patient perspectives
P478volume10