Research Ethics Committee Members Research Articles

Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study

BackgroundGiving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points.MethodsThe survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes.ResultsNinety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project’s rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured.ConclusionsOur survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents’ lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

Bibliometric analysis of publications that cited the CIOMS 2016 “International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans”

The CIOMS book “International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans”, published in 2016 (IEG2016), provides information to assist research ethics committee members and research practitioners with pragmatically implementing ethical considerations while planning and conducting their research. To identify which aspects of research IEG2016 has had the greatest impact since its publication, we analyzed metadata from 942 papers that cited IEG2016 (English language title only) from Web of Science (WoS, Clarivate). Using VOSviewer, we mapped the co-occurrence of keywords to derive the network of all keywords that co-occurred at least five times in the set of citing papers. We found that the keywords ethics, research ethics, informed consent, and clinical trials had high co-occurrence scores in this set of publications. Strong links were also observed between ethics, research ethics, and informed consent. We identified fifteen human-related (HR) keyword nodes in this keyword network. Analysis of the subset of 273 IEG2016-citing articles containing these fifteen HR keywords showed later-date publications were focused on the youngest humans (children, adolescents, young people, minors) and the humans typically responsible for those youngest humans, namely women and parents. Seventy-nine of the 110 networked countries/regions associated with IEG2016-citing articles were home to HR keyword articles. We conclude that IEG2016 has had significant impact in health and medical science literature and has served as a foundation for health-related research around the world in the areas of ethics, informed consent, and research ethics and the linkage of these topics to under-represented populations in such research.

Agent regret and the moral responsibility for the misuse of research results

An increasing number of research fields must expect that their projects will be classified as susceptible to misuse or otherwise security relevant, even if the reasons or criteria for this classification have not yet been uniformly developed. Research institutions will commonly distribute the obligation to predict and prevent misuse across multiple members and structures including ethics committees. However, cases of misuse occur even in spite of these precautions, raising the question of the type and distribution of responsibility for the resulting harm. This question becomes even more pressing if research ethics committees in their decisions ask researchers to provide a misuse- specific risk assessment or risk mitigation plan and thereby shift back a part of their responsibility on the researchers. While this kind of requirement may be considered as unsatisfactory by researchers, members of research ethics committees or boards and third-party funders, will argue that it fulfils two important functions. On the one hand, it makes use of the best available source for misuse risk-assessment available to most committees; on the other hand, it guarantees that the researchers at least try to take responsibility. If researchers, committee members and others involved discharge their obligation to predict and mitigate misuse risks with due diligence, any backward-looking responsibility they retain is to show agent regret for the results of their work having been misused.

Developing a Short Course on the Ethical, Legal, and Social Issues of Biobanking Practice-A Participatory Action Research Study in South Africa.

Introduction: There is a paucity of available training opportunities on the ethical, legal, and social issues (ELSI) of biobanking in South Africa and other low- and middle-income countries. For this purpose, an online short course was developed on the ELSI of biobanking practice. Study Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to review the short course to determine its relevance for identified stakeholders in biobanking practice in South Africa. Methods: This in-depth exploratory study was conducted using a qualitative approach. Two groups of volunteers were purposively identified for the review of the course. Group 1 (Biobanking group, n = 11) comprised researchers, biobankers, postgraduate students in biobanking research, and research ethics committee members. Group 2 (Curriculum group, n = 10) comprised academics with expertise in curriculum development and review who were invited to participate in the study. A separate online open-ended questionnaire was used to collect data from each group. Both questionnaires focused on the description of the module structure and coherence. In addition, participants in Group 2 were asked to comment on the assessment strategy used. Thematic analysis was conducted on the collected data. Summary of the Study Findings: The following themes were identified as strengths and shortcomings of the developed course and suggestions to improve both the content and delivery of the course. Participants were generally satisfied with the course design and structure. The module content was seen as being clear and aligned with the learning objectives. While the course structure was seen as easy to follow, some respondents did express difficulty in navigating through the modules while others experienced varying online technical problems. The general opinion was that the assessment strategy was consistent with the course aim and objectives. Conclusion: Study participants responded positively to this course and provided constructive criticism to improve the educational offering.

Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research

BackgroundGenetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study’s objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent.MethodsWe conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.ResultsA total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.DiscussionParticipants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Cross-border data sharing through the lens of research ethics committee members in sub-Saharan Africa.

Several factors thwart successful data sharing-ambiguous or fragmented regulatory landscapes, conflicting institutional/researcher interests and varying levels of data science-related expertise are among these. Traditional ethics oversight mechanisms and practices may not be well placed to guarantee adequate research oversight given the unique challenges presented by digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI). Data-intensive research has raised new, contextual ethics and legal challenges that are particularly relevant in an African research setting. Yet, no empirical research has been conducted to explore these challenges. We explored REC members' views and experiences on data sharing by conducting 20 semi-structured interviews online between June 2022 and February 2023. Using purposive sampling and snowballing, we recruited representatives across sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). We transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed the data with Atlas.ti V22. Three dominant themes were identified: (i) experiences in reviewing data sharing protocols, (ii) perceptions of data transfer tools and (iii) ethical, legal and social challenges of data sharing. Several sub-themes emerged as: (i.a) frequency of and approaches used in reviewing data sharing protocols, (i.b) practical/technical challenges, (i.c) training, (ii.a) ideal structure of data transfer tools, (ii.b) key elements of data transfer tools, (ii.c) implementation level, (ii.d) key stakeholders in developing and reviewing a data transfer agreement (DTA), (iii.a) confidentiality and anonymity, (iii.b) consent, (iii.c) regulatory frameworks, and (iii.d) stigmatisation and discrimination. Our results indicated variability in REC members' perceptions, suboptimal awareness of the existence of data protection laws and a unanimously expressed need for REC member training. To promote efficient data sharing within and across SSA, guidelines that incorporate ethical, legal and social elements need to be developed in consultation with relevant stakeholders and field experts, along with the training accreditation of REC members in the review of data-intensive protocols.

Perceptions of policymakers and ethicists on ethical considerations in the conduct of research during disease outbreaks in Nigeria

Background There is a dearth of literature on the perspectives of stakeholders from countries in Africa on the institution of a research culture as part of a holistic system of pandemic preparedness and response. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of policymakers, representatives from Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and international bioethics experts on the ethics of conducting research during infectious disease outbreaks in Nigeria. Methods We conducted structured interviews with six policymakers actively engaged in disease outbreak response. The interview themes included systems and structures for research, local researcher competency, regulatory oversight, study types, ethical review approaches, and integrating research into outbreak response. We further engaged 12 participants including REC members from Nigeria and Liberia, international bioethics experts, and study co-investigators in a structured discussion to appraise and expand on themes identified during the interviews at a 2-day meeting in December 2018. We also held two virtual consultations afterwards. The findings from these processes were synthesized to develop a comprehensive report. Results Participants stressed the significance of conducting research during disease outbreaks to understand causal factors, evaluate public health measures, and inform future prevention and treatment strategies, and identified the need for clear ethical guidelines for RECs during outbreaks. Participants proposed a sliding scale for prioritizing categorized studies, emphasizing immediate solutions over future-focused research. Discussants proposed a "systems approach" to ethics review, emphasizing interdependence, governance structures, communication infrastructure, effective communication with policymakers, and a funding structure. Conclusion Conducting ethical research during disease outbreaks requires a comprehensive, context-dependent approach, involving stakeholders, and ensuring robust ethical oversight through proficient RECs. The proposed "System Approach" offers a model for sustainable and effective ethics review during outbreaks, fostering locally relevant and socially valuable research while prioritizing the well-being of research participants and communities.

Exploring views of South African research ethics committees on pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19

South African research ethics committees (RECs) faced significant challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. Research ethics committees needed to find a balance between careful consideration of scientific validity and ethical merit of protocols, and review with the urgency normally associated with public health emergency research. We aimed to explore the views of South African RECs on their pandemic preparedness and response during COVID-19. We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 participants from RECs that were actively involved in the review of COVID-19 related research, at seven academic institutions across South Africa. Interviews were conducted remotely using an in-depth interview guide that included questions regarding REC preparedness and response to COVID-19. Interviews were conducted until data saturation, and audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and coded. An inductive approach to thematic analysis was used to organise data into themes and sub-themes. This study focused on three main themes: coping during COVID-19, building REC capacity during pandemic times and a consistently cautious approach to mutual recognition of REC reviews. Despite an initial sense of unpreparedness, RECs were able to adapt and maintain careful ethical oversight of both COVID and non-COVID research, and the rigour of REC reviews. Several important lessons for preparedness and response to future pandemics were identified, including heightened awareness of publication, funding and political pressures, the importance of regular training for RECs and researchers, and strategies to enhance moral resilience of REC members. Incremental steps are needed to build trust and authentic partnerships among RECs in inter-pandemic times, to facilitate collaboration during future public health emergencies.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research

BackgroundThe ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022.MethodsThe GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was “Ethics of AI in Global Health Research”. The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022.ResultsWe describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships.ConclusionsThe 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Research Ethics Committee and Integrity Board Members’ Collaborative Decision Making in Cases in a Training Setting

AbstractThis research focuses on how research ethics committee and integrity board members discuss and decide on solutions to case scenarios that involve a dimension of research ethics or integrity in collaborative settings. The cases involved issues around authorship, conflict of interest, disregard of good scientific practice and ethics review, and research with vulnerable populations (children and neonates). The cases were set in a university, a hospital, or a research institute. In the research, we used a deductive qualitative approach with thematic analysis. Twenty-seven research ethics committee and research integrity board members from 16 European countries and one country outside Europe participated. Participants represented natural and life sciences, social sciences, and humanities. They worked on cases involving ethical/integrity issues in six different constellations. Results show that experts apply key elements of ethical decision making, namely identification of ethical issues, stakeholders, guidelines, solutions, and own positionality, in dealing collaboratively with ethics/ integrity problems, and the nature of the application depends on the complexity of the case. Understanding how individuals knowledgeable in research ethics and integrity, in this case, individuals serving on research ethics committees and integrity boards, approach ethical/ moral issues can help to identify strategies that may be useful in the development of research ethics and integrity training for junior researchers who may benefit from learning professional strategies.

One Health research ethics review processes in African countries: Challenges and opportunities

One Health research has gained attention over the past few decades due to its potential to improve health challenges across the globe. However, obtaining ethics approvals for timely implementation of One Health research is a challenge in some contexts. Our study was undertaken to describe various challenges faced by researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and members of regulatory bodies in Africa. An online survey was conducted between March and June 2021. The effect of predictors, including respondents' role (e.g., REC member, regulator and/or One Health researcher), sex, education, age, and country, on the perception of challenges and opportunities when conducting and reviewing One Health research, was investigated using multivariable linear regression models. Participants with different roles did not perceive any of the examined challenges differently during review of One Health-related research; but female participants (p = 0.026) and those with ten or more years of experience (p = 0.0325) perceived insufficient One Health knowledge as less of a challenge. Professional role was an important predictor (p = 0.025) for the perception of the establishment of a mandatory One Health review system. Respondents with multiple roles perceived the creation of ad hoc committees for review of One Health research under emergency situations to be less important (p = 0.02); and REC members perceived the creation of such committees to be less feasible (p = 0.0697). Our study showed that perceptions of the importance and feasibility of opportunities for improvement of One Health research ethics review under emergency and non-emergency situations varied across professional roles. This emphasizes the need to consider such improvement strategies; and the need for continuous and timely evaluation for improvement of ethics review of One Health and emergency research in Africa.

Ethical challenges in global research on health system responses to violence against women: a qualitative study of policy and professional perspectives

BackgroundStudying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW.MethodsWe used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW.ResultsWe developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs’ rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research.ConclusionsThe process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

The readiness of the Asian research ethics committees in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic: A multi-country survey.

COVID-19 is a highly challenging infectious disease. Research ethics committees (RECs) have challenges reviewing research on this new pandemic disease under a tight timeline and public pressure. This study aimed to assess RECs' responses and review during the outbreak in seven Asian countries where the Strategic Initiative for Developing Capacity in Ethical Review (SIDCER) networks are active. The online survey was conducted in seven Asian countries from April to August 2021. Two sets of online questionnaires were developed, one set for the chairs/secretaries and another set for the REC members.The REC profiles obtained from the REC members are descriptive in nature. Data from the chairs/secretaries were compared between the RECs with external quality assessment (SIDCER-Recognized RECs, SR-RECs) and non-external quality assessment (Non-SIDCER-Recognized RECs, NSR-RECs) and analyzed using a Chi-squared test. A total of 688 REC members and 197 REC chairs/secretaries participated in the survey. Most RECs have standard operating procedures (SOPs), and have experience in reviewing all types of protocols, but 18.1% had no experience reviewing COVID-19 protocols. Most REC members need specific training on reviewing COVID-19 protocols (93%). In response to the outbreak, RECs used online reviews, increased meeting frequency and single/central REC. All SR-RECs had a member composition as required by the World Health Organisation ethics guidelines, while some NSR-RECs lacked non-affiliated and/or layperson members. SR-RECs reviewed more COVID-related product development protocols and indicated challenges in reviewing risk/benefit and vulnerability (0.010), informed consent form (0.002), and privacy and confidentiality (P = 0.020) than NSR-RECs. Surveyed RECs had a general knowledge of REC operation and played a significant role in reviewing COVID-19-related product development protocols. Having active networks of RECs across regions to share updated information and resources could be one of the strategies to promote readiness for future public health emergencies.

Evaluating research ethics committees in Vietnam and Laos: Results of a validated self-assessment tool.

There is an increase in human subject research in developing countries and conducting them in an ethical manner depends on the research ethics oversight in these countries. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the operational, financial, and educational characteristics of research ethics committees (RECs) at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. A validated self-assessment tool designed to assess nine major characteristics of RECs was translated into Vietnamese and Laotian. The translated surveys were delivered to and completed by representatives from RECs at institutions in Vietnam and Laos. The surveys were collected, translated back into English, and scored. The data was analyzed to identify potential areas of strength and areas for improvement. The mean survey score for the 19 RECs surveyed was 165.3 out of a maximum of 200 points with a standard deviation of 22.9. Committees scored the highest in the review of specific protocol items (95.6%), submission arrangements and materials (89.5%), and the policies referring to review procedures (85.6%) domains. RECs scored the lowest in the resources domain (65.5%), with only 26.3% of committees having an annual budget. Nearly all RECs have standard operating procedures (94.7%) and policies for disclosing conflicts of interest (89.5%). Most committees use prior ethics training as a criterion to select REC chairs (78.9%) and members (73.7%), with the majority of committees requiring a training course in ethics (76.5%). 68.4% of committees have continuing education in ethics for members and only 42.1% of committees have a budget for member training. This study demonstrated that RECs in Vietnam and Laos have strong foundational review processes for research protocols. Important areas of improvement include improved institutional oversight, financial and administrative resources, and the continued ethics education for current committee members.

PartnerREC network: Result from a process of coconstruction with patient partners and researchers

The PartnerREC network at the Geneva University Hospitals aims to facilitate the collaboration between researchers and patient partners in any type of clinical research, mainly those led at the HUG. It is the result of a coconstruction process initiated in 2019 by physicians, research professionals, cantonal research ethics committee members, a lawyer, and patient partners. The network implemented four initiatives: a) a website providing information to researchers and patients participating to research projects; b) personalized counseling for researchers to explore partnership opportunities in their own research projects; c) a training program related to patient partnership in research developed together with different partners in French-speaking Switzerland and d) its own research program on partnership in clinical research.

‘It is a complex process, but it’s very important to return these results to participants’. Stakeholders’ perspectives on the ethical considerations for returning individual pharmacogenomics research results to people living with HIV

This study aimed to explore stakeholders’ perspectives on the ethical considerations for returning individual pharmacogenomics research results to people living with HIV. A qualitative approach to investigation involved five focus group discussions with 30 Community representatives, 12 key informant interviews with researchers, and 12 in-depth interviews with research ethics committee members. In total, 54 stakeholders who were involved in pharmacogenomics research and HIV treatment and care contributed to the data collection between September 2021 and February 2022. The study explored five prominent themes: (i) defining the nature of research results to return to participants; (ii) preparing research participants to receive their results; (iii) obtaining informed consent for the return of results; (iv) opinions on health personnel to return the results to participants; and (v) opinions on how research results should be communicated to participants. Respondents identified various strategies for the return of individual results with minimal ethical risks including the setting up of a diverse and independent committee to undertake a risk-benefit assessment based on local context; ongoing discussions about the possible kinds of results and their implications throughout the study; and employing genetic counsellors to communicate results to participants. The strategies identified in this study should be further studied and independently verified.

Ranking Research Methodology by Risk — a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members

BackgroundWhen reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards — IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants’ time, researchers’ time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey.ResultsWe collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky).ConclusionsWe discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.

Co-production of guidance and resources to implement principled participant information leaflets (PrinciPILs).

The way information about potential benefits and harms of trial is presented within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and may cause unnecessary 'nocebo' effects. The Medical Research Council (MRC) funded a project that developed seven principles to reduce this variation. However, guidance has not been produced to facilitate the implementation of the principles. Stakeholder involvement is recommended to optimise the way these principles are disseminated and explained. To co-produce recommendations for developing: (1) user-friendly guidance for users of the principles; and (2) resources that support the implementation of the principles. We held a co-production workshop with representation from the following professional groups: the Health Research Authority (HRA), research ethics committee members, and trial managers. Two rounds of discussions focused on generating recommendations for guidance and resources that support the implementation of the seven principles. Extensive low inference style ethnographic notes were taken, and the data were analysed thematically using deductive codes. The data was collected on October 14, 2022. 25 participants attended a hybrid workshop. Participants recommended that both researchers designing PILs and research ethics committee members should use the principles, and that that they should be simple, mention both benefits and harms explicitly, include examples of visual representations, and provide the evidence base for the principles. We were able to co-produce recommendations for developing and implementing the seven principles within PILs. These recommendations can now be implemented to reduce unexplained variation in the way potential benefits and harms are shared within PILs.

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved.

The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments' Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified strong public support for alternative ethics review processes. Here we report feedback from 151 current research ethics committee members conducted at three annual training events, where we asked members to critically reflect on their ethics review activities, and to share new ideas or ways of working. The results showed a high regard for good quality discussion among members with diverse experience. Good chairing, organisation, feedback and the opportunity for reflection on ways of working were considered key. Areas for improvement included the consistency of information provided to committees by researchers, and better structuring of discussions by allowing signposting of the key issues that ethics committee members might need to consider.

Opinions and attitudes of research ethics committees in Arab countries in the Middle East and North African region toward ethical issues involving biobank research

Members of research ethics committees (RECs) face a number of ethical challenges when reviewing genomic research. These include issues regarding the content and type of consent, the return of individual research results, mechanisms of sharing specimens and health data, and appropriate community engagement efforts. This article presents the findings from a survey that sought to investigate the opinions and attitudes of REC members from four Arab countries in the Middle East and North Africa (Egypt, Morocco, Sudan, and Jordan) toward these ethical issues. Our findings suggest that efforts are required to better familiarize REC members with the requirements for ethical biobank research. Additionally, we recommend that further research is undertaken with REC members regarding the main items that should be present in the Material Transfer Agreements /Data Transfer Agreements in their corresponding countries and the type of consent that should be used in genomic research.