Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice

Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice Whether a questionnaire directed at healthcare professionals requires formal ethics approval should, one might assume, be a straightforward question.Surprisingly, it is not.While planning a recent multicentre questionnaire study involving clinicians across several UK hospitals, I needed to determine whether formal ethics approval was required before the survey could proceed.The proposed research was simple: an anonymous questionnaire asking doctors about their preferred physiological targets in defined clinical scenarios.There were no patients, no identifiable patient data, no interventions and no alteration to clinical care.To clarify the position, I sought advice from colleagues, university governance teams and the Editors-in-Chief of 10 UK medical journals representing a range of clinical specialities.Rather than providing reassurance, these enquiries revealed striking inconsistency.Some editors considered

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Anaesthesia
Published
2026-09-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.70378
Primary Topic
Ethics in Clinical Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
article

Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice

Ned Gilbert-Kawai
Anaesthesia
Ethics in Clinical Research
article

Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice

Ned Gilbert-Kawai
article en

Abstract

Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice Whether a questionnaire directed at healthcare professionals requires formal ethics approval should, one might assume, be a straightforward question.Surprisingly, it is not.While planning a recent multicentre questionnaire study involving clinicians across several UK hospitals, I needed to determine whether formal ethics approval was required before the survey could proceed.The proposed research was simple: an anonymous questionnaire asking doctors about their preferred physiological targets in defined clinical scenarios.There were no patients, no identifiable patient data, no interventions and no alteration to clinical care.To clarify the position, I sought advice from colleagues, university governance teams and the Editors-in-Chief of 10 UK medical journals representing a range of clinical specialities.Rather than providing reassurance, these enquiries revealed striking inconsistency.Some editors considered

Anaesthesia
University of Liverpool (GB), Royal Liverpool University Hospital (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Ethics in Clinical Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Ethics approval for clinician surveys: variation in guidance and practice — Ned Gilbert-Kawai · Anaesthesia (2026) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS