Service evaluation: A grey area of research?

Lu-yen Chen, Josephine Fawcett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract / Description of output

The National Health Service in the United Kingdom categorises research and research-like activities in five ways, as ‘service evaluation’, ‘clinical audit’, ‘surveillance’, ‘usual practice’ and ‘research’. Only activities classified as ‘research’ require review by the Research Ethics Committee (REC). It is argued in this position paper that the current governance of research and research-like activities does not provide sufficient ethical oversight for projects classified as ‘service evaluation’. The distinction between the categories of ‘research’ and ‘service evaluation’ can be a grey area. A considerable percentage of studies are considered as non-research and therefore not eligible to be reviewed by the REC, which scrutinises research proposals rigorously to ensure they conform to established ethical standards; protecting research participants from harm, preserving their rights and providing reassurance to the public. This paper explores the ethical discomfort potentially inherent in the activity currently labelled service evaluation.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1-14
JournalNursing Ethics
Early online date20 Dec 2017
Publication statusE-pub ahead of print - 20 Dec 2017

Keywords / Materials (for Non-textual outputs)

  • research ethics
  • research
  • service evaluation
  • ethics review
  • ethics principles


Dive into the research topics of 'Service evaluation: A grey area of research?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this