Research Ethics Committee Members Research Articles

Research ethics committee members’ perspectives on paediatric research: a qualitative interview study

Research ethics committees (RECs) have a crucial role in protecting children in research. However, studies on REC members’ perspectives on paediatric research are scarce. We conducted a qualitative study to explore Swedish scientific REC members’ perspectives on ethical aspects in applications involving children with severe health conditions. The REC members considered promoting participation, protecting children and regulatory adherence to be central aspects. The results underscored the importance of not neglecting ill children’s rights to adapted information and participation. REC members supported a contextual and holistic approach to vulnerability and risk, which considers the child’s and parents’ psychological wellbeing and the child’s integrity, both short and long term. The ethical complexity of paediatric research requires continuous ethical competence development within RECs.

Building Capacity for Research Ethics Committees in Uganda.

Timely communication from Research Ethics Committees (REC) to researchers is essential to meet deadlines. We conducted a capacity building program for REC members, REC and research administrators, and researchers from seven RECs in Uganda in order to improve the research regulatory approval cycle. The training was delivered from March 2020 to July 2021. Trainees were evaluated using pre and post-training tests. There was an increase in the average score from 38% to 53% in pre and post-training test respectively for the personal effectiveness and leadership programme for REC and research administrators. There was an increase in the average score of from 53.9% to 70.1% in pre and post-training test respectively for training on emerging and complex study designs. We achieved shift in knowledge and skills in use of the National Research Information Management System. We recommend regular training of REC members and administrators for efficient review of research protocols.

Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-Saharan Africa.

Interest in the governance of big data is growing exponentially. However, finding the right balance between making large volumes of data accessible, and safeguarding privacy, preventing data misuse, determining authorship and protecting intellectual property remain challenging. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), research ethics committees (RECs) play an important role in reviewing data-intense research protocols. However, this regulatory role must be embedded in a context of robust governance. There is currently a paucity of published literature on how big data are regulated in SSA and if the capacity to review protocols is sufficient. The aim of this study was to provide a broad overview of REC members' awareness and perceptions of big data governance in SSA. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to July 2022. We invited 300 REC members to participate in our online survey via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A total of 140 REC members, representing 34 SSA countries, completed the online survey. Awareness of data governance laws, policies and guidelines was variable across the subcontinent. A quarter of respondents (25%) indicated that national regulations on the trans-border flow of research data are inadequate. Institutional policies on research data protection were also regarded as being inadequate. Most respondents (64%) believed that they lacked experience in reviewing data-intense protocols. Data governance and regulation in SSA need to be strengthened at both national and institutional levels. There is a strong need for capacity development in the review of data-intense research protocols on the subcontinent.

Inclusion of adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and or communication in research: triangulation from a mixed-methods study of current practice and values across multiple stakeholders

ObjectivesWe aimed to: (A) describe researcher decision-making when including or excluding adults with conditions that have the potential to affect capacity and/or communication in research and (B) explore the underlying...

The application of data altruism in clinical research through empirical and legal analysis lenses.

The legal framework for clinical research in the EU is complex and the lack of harmonization of the relevant legal and ethical rules remains one of the main challenges for stakeholders in the field. The recently adopted Data Governance Act (DGA) and the proposal for a European Health Data Space (EHDS) promise to solve the existing challenges with respect to access to and (re)use of personal data for research, but also risk to further complexify the field. The DGA introduced a novel mechanism - data altruism. Data altruism is understood as the voluntary sharing of personal and non-personal data, based on the consent of data subjects or the permission of natural and legal persons, without seeking a reward and for objectives of general interest. This study aimed to gain insights into the opinion of clinical research stakeholders on data altruism, and to critically discuss key issues pertaining to the application of data altruism from a legal point of view. Semi-structured interviews with (1) data protection officers (DPOs) and legal experts working with commercial and academic sponsors of clinical trials, (2) investigators, and (3) members of research ethics committees. Data underwent framework analysis. The legal discussion was comprised of legal doctrinal research with focus on the DGA, EHDS proposal, and the interplay with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Fourteen experts took part in the interviews, more than half of which were DPOs/legal experts. Interviewees were based in seven EU Member states and the United Kingdom. The majority of participants were critical towards the data altruism mechanism and pointed out challenges and risks associated with its application. Although data altruism holds the potential to facilitate data sharing, its application in clinical research at the moment is still riddled with uncertainties. The interplay of the DGA rules with the provisions of the GDPR and the EHDS proposal are insufficiently clear and further efforts from the legislator are required to build a working, patient-centered, and research fostering data altruism system.

URECA – the Research Ethics and Data Protection Online Review Platform used by the University of Malta Authors

Nowadays, research ethics and data protection are given very high importance, and research organizations, including universities, need to safeguard their level of professionalism and integrity by providing the necessary guidelines. Moreover, they need to ensure that these guidelines are being adhered to by their affiliated researchers, including students. This is needed for protection of the research subjects, researchers, and the organization (university) itself. However, care must be taken so that the research ethics review process is streamlined as much as possible to minimize bureaucracy, as such guidelines would then be viewed as a research barrier. This study describes URECA, the online review platform developed in-house by the University of Malta to streamline its research ethics review process, thus simplifying matters for the researchers/students, reviewers, and auditing committees. This platform is utilized by researchers and students to submit information regarding their research and related data collection, by supervisors to endorse their students’ research, by Faculty Research Ethics Committee members to review research proposals as required, and by the University Research Ethics Committee to manage and audit the overall process.

Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration.

Introduction: Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies provide a unique platform for studying the pathophysiology of infectious diseases and accelerated testing of vaccines and drugs in controlled settings. However, ethical issues shroud them as the disease-causing pathogen is intentionally inoculated into healthy consenting volunteers, and effective treatment may or may not be available. We explored the perceptions of the members of institutional ethics committees (IECs) in India about CHIM studies. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study, conducted across seven sites in India, included 11 focused group discussions (FGD) and 31 in-depth interviews (IDI). A flexible approach was used with the aid of a topic guide. The data were thematically analyzed using grounded theory and an inductive approach. Emerging themes and sub-themes were analyzed, and major emergent themes were elucidated. Results: Seventy-two IEC members participated in the study including 21 basic medical scientists, 29 clinicians, 9 lay people, 6 legal experts and 7 social scientists. Three major themes emerged from this analysis-apprehensions about conduct of CHIM studies in India, a perceived need for CHIM studies in India and risk mitigation measures needed to protect research participants and minimize the associated risks. Conclusion: Development of a specific regulatory and ethical framework, training of research staff and ethics committee members, and ensuring specialized research infrastructure along with adequate community sensitization were considered essential before initiation of CHIM studies in India.

Key ethical issues encountered during COVID-19 research: a thematic analysis of perspectives from South African research ethics committees

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic presents significant challenges to research ethics committees (RECs) in balancing urgency of review of COVID-19 research with careful consideration of risks and benefits. In the African context, RECs are further challenged by historical mistrust of research and potential impacts on COVID-19 related research participation, as well as the need to facilitate equitable access to effective treatments or vaccines for COVID-19. In South Africa, an absent National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) also left RECs without national guidance for a significant duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study that explored the perspectives and experiences of RECs regarding the ethical challenges of COVID-19 research in South Africa.MethodsWe conducted in-depth interviews with 21 REC chairpersons or members from seven RECs at large academic health institutions across South Africa that were actively involved in the review of COVID-19 related research from January to April 2021. In-depth interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom. Interviews (60–125 min) were conducted in English using an in-depth interview guide, until data saturation was achieved. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and field notes were converted into data documents. Line-by-line coding of transcripts was performed, and data were organised into themes and sub-themes. An inductive approach to thematic analysis was used to analyse data.ResultsFive main themes were identified, namely: rapidly evolving research ethics landscape, extreme vulnerability of research participants, unique challenges to informed consent, challenges to community engagement during COVID-19, and overlapping research ethics and public health equity issues. Sub-themes were identified for each main theme.ConclusionsNumerous, significant ethical complexities and challenges were identified by South African REC members in the review of COVID-19 related research. While RECs are resilient and adaptable, reviewer and REC member fatigue were major concerns. The numerous ethical issues identified also highlight the need for research ethics teaching and training, especially in informed consent, as well as the urgent requirement for the development of national guidelines for research ethics during public health emergencies. Further, comparative analysis between different countries is needed to develop the discourse around African RECs and COVID-19 research ethics issues.

‘Guidance should have been there 15 years ago’ research stakeholders’ perspectives on ancillary care in the global south: a case study of Malawi

BackgroundMedical researchers in resource-constrained settings must make difficult moral decisions about the provision of ancillary care to participants where additional healthcare needs fall outside the scope of the research and are not provided for by the local healthcare system. We examined research stakeholder perceptions and experiences of ancillary care in biomedical research projects in Malawi.MethodsWe conducted 45 qualitative in-depth interviews with key research stakeholders: researchers, health officials, research ethics committee members, research participants and grants officers from international research funding organisations. Thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the findings.FindingsAll stakeholders perceived the provision of ancillary care to have potential health benefits to study participants in biomedical research. However, they also had concerns, particularly related to the absence of guidance to support it. Some suggested that consideration for ancillary care provision could be possible on a case-by-case basis but that most of the support from research projects should be directed towards strengthening the public health system, emphasising public good above individual or personal benefits. Some researchers and ethics committee members raised concerns about potential tensions in terms of funding, for example balancing study demands with addressing participants’ additional health needs.ConclusionOur findings highlight the complexities and gaps in the guidance around the provision of ancillary care in Malawi and other resource-constrained settings more generally. To promote the provision of ancillary care, we recommend that national and international guidelines for research ethics include specific recommendations for resource-constrained settings and specific types of research.

Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study

While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.

Benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research in Uganda: Perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members.

Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.

Professional and academic profile of the Brazilian research ethics committees

BackgroundBrazil is among the sixteen countries that conducts the most clinical trials in the world. It has a system to review research ethics with human beings made up by the National Commission on Research Ethics (CONEP) and 779 Research Ethics Committees (RECs), in 2017. The RECs are supposed to follow the same rules regarding their membership, although the RECs that review Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researches must respect Resolution 510/16. There are Brazilian RECs that review SSH and clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the academic professional profile of the members of the CONEP and Brazilian RECs, their adequacy to the norms, and the challenges faced by the REC’s Chairs to compose their membership.MethodsAll 779 Brazilian RECs’ chairs are invited to fill in a questionnaire informing academic and professional background of the RECs members, and 92 answered. However, eight were excluded for having sent an incomplete questionnaire, leaving a total of 84 participants. The variables were described by absolute and relative frequency. The Chi-square test and ANOVA was used to analyze regional differences related difficulties to compose the committee. The significance level was 95%.ResultsThe results showed a predominance of members from the biomedical area (57%), while 33% were members of the Social Sciences and Humanities and 5.5% were community representatives. As for the academic degree, there were (45.2%) PhD and (27.9%) masters. The divergences in relation to the guidelines result from the difficulties of having participants in some areas and the little interest in the work carried out by the committees.ConclusionThe RECs are partially adequate to the norms and their performance may be compromised by the low participation of community representatives. The organization of REC’s specifics to review biomedical research could improve the ethical review process, ensuring a membership more qualified for these protocols.

The role of nursing members in research ethics committees in Japan.

The International Council of Nurses (2012) and the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (2016) determined and published ethical standards relevant to nursing researchers and practitioners; based on these standards, nurses are expected to participate in committees where decisions on ethical issues are made. While clinical practitioners and nursing educators actively serve on research ethics committees, their precise role in these platforms has yet to be elucidated. In this study, medical, humanities/social science, lay, and nursing members in research ethics committees across Japan were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview; data were analyzed through a qualitative analysis method. Specifically, we interviewed 23 research ethics committee members in Japan to clarify the role of nursing members in the committee. Our qualitative analysis yielded six themes: share perspectives and experiences in nursing, protect research participants, evaluate the research design, represent the voice of research participants, confirm the informed consent documents and ascertain research participants' free will. The analyses revealed a slight difference between what other committee members expected of the role of nursing members and nursing members' recognition of their own role. Nursing members make an important and independent contribution to ethics committees on deliberations and decision-making regarding research ethics. Within the context of research ethics committees, member selection and training are essential issues, and this study contributes to the literature by showing how these topics relate to the role of the research ethics committees and of their members.

Strengthening ethics committees for health-related research in sub-Saharan Africa: a scoping review

ObjectiveHealth-related research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has grown over the years. However, concerns have been raised about the state of research ethics committees (RECs). This scoping review examines the literature...

Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study.

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1st January 2020 to 20th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

Developing principles for sharing information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms with patients: report of a modified Delphi survey

BackgroundThe way information about potential harms of trial intervention is shared within participant information leaflets (PILs) varies widely and can cause subjective ‘nocebo’ harms. This study aimed to develop principles to improve the composition of information about potential trial intervention benefits and harms within PILs so that variability and avoidable harms are reduced.MethodsWe conducted a two-round modified online Delphi survey, followed by a consensus meeting. For the first round of the survey, 27 statements were developed based on previous research and relevant guidance from the UK, the USA and the World Health Organization. Participants included members from each of the following stakeholder groups: patient and public representatives, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, medico-legal experts, psychologists and trial managers. Each participant was asked to rate their degree of agreement or disagreement with each statement on a 9-point Likert scale. In the second round, participants were invited to reappraise their ratings after reviewing the results of the first round. Finally, two members from each stakeholder group participated in a meeting to confirm those statements for which there was agreement.ResultsTwo hundred and fifty participants completed round 1, and 201 participants completed round 2. In round 1, consensus was reached for 16 statements. In round 2, consensus was reached for an additional three statements. The consensus meeting confirmed the survey results and consolidated the statements. This process resulted in seven principles: (1) all potential harms of a given intervention should be listed, (2) all potential harms should be separated into serious and less serious, (3) it must be made explicit that not all potential harms are known, (4) all potential benefits should be listed, (5) all potential benefits and harms need to be compared with what would happen if the participant did not take part in the trial, (6) suitable visual representations should be added where appropriate and (7) information regarding potential benefits and harms should not be presented apart by one or more pages.ConclusionsOur modified Delphi process successfully generated seven principles that can and should be used to guide how information is conveyed to patients in information leaflets regarding potential trial benefits and harms.

Ethical challenges in mass drug administration for reducing childhood mortality: a qualitative study

BackgroundMass drug administration (MDA) of medications to entire at-risk communities or populations has shown promise in the control and elimination of global infectious diseases. MDA of the broad-spectrum antibiotic azithromycin has demonstrated the potential to reduce childhood mortality in children at risk of premature death in some global settings. However, MDA of antibiotics raises complex ethical challenges, including weighing near-term benefits against longer-term risks—particularly the development of antimicrobial resistance that could diminish antibiotic effectiveness for current or future generations. The aim of this study was to understand how key actors involved in MDA perceive the ethical challenges of MDA.MethodsWe conducted 35 semi-structured interviews from December 2020–February 2022 with investigators, funders, bioethicists, research ethics committee members, industry representatives, and others from both high-income countries (HICs) and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Interview participants were identified via one of seven MDA studies purposively chosen to represent diversity in terms of use of the antibiotic azithromycin; use of a primary mortality endpoint; and whether the study occurred in a high child mortality country. Data were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methodology.ResultsThe most frequently discussed ethical challenges related to meaningful community engagement, how to weigh risks and benefits, and the need to target MDA We developed a concept map of how participants considered ethical issues in MDA for child mortality; it emphasizes MDA’s place alongside other public health interventions, empowerment, and equity. Concerns over an ethical double standard in weighing risks and benefits emerged as a unifying theme, albeit one that participants interpreted in radically different ways. Some thought MDA for reducing child mortality was ethically obligatory; others suggested it was impermissible.ConclusionsEthical challenges raised by MDA of antibiotics for childhood mortality—which span socio-cultural issues, the environment, and effects on future generations—require consideration beyond traditional clinical trial review. The appropriate role of MDA also requires attention to concerns over ethical double standards and power dynamics in global health that affect how we view antibiotic use in HICs versus LMICs. Our findings suggest the need to develop additional, comprehensive guidance on managing ethical challenges in MDA.Graphical

Boosting ethics review capacity in public health emergency situations: Co-creation of a training model for French-speaking research ethics committees.

Ethics review preparedness is a major foundation for national effective response to public health emergencies, because it promotes pertinent research and enhances the protection of research participants and communities. In low-income countries, it can also promote equitable research partnership. However, most relevant literature is in English and not easily accessible for the members of research ethics committees in French-speaking African countries. A training module in French, addressing the issue of research ethics review during outbreaks and other public health emergencies, was designed based on a non-systematic literature review, and in order to be complementary to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national guidelines for ethics review. The module was administered to 42 members of the five ethics committees in DRC that expressed their interest for the training. This training, co-designed with local stakeholders, in the local working language and taking into account local circumstances and regulation, provided participants with up-to-date insights of research ethics (and research ethics preparedness) in public health emergencies. It resulted in rich reflection and knowledge-sharing on good practices across the ethics committees. As most participating ethics committees do not have yet explicit standard operating procedures for expedited review of protocols submitted in emergency situations, this would be a next important step to facilitate emergency reviews in the most efficient way.

Preclinical efficacy in investigator's brochures: Stakeholders' views on measures to improve completeness and robustness.

Research ethics committees and regulatory agencies assess whether the benefits of a proposed early-stage clinical trial outweigh the risks based on preclinical studies reported in investigator's brochures (IBs). Recent studies have indicated that the reporting of preclinical evidence presented in IBs does not enable proper risk-benefit assessment. We interviewed different stakeholders (regulators, research ethics committee members, preclinical and clinical researchers, ethicists, and metaresearchers) about their views on measures to increase the completeness and robustness of preclinical evidence reporting in IBs. This study was preregistered (https://osf.io/nvzwy/). We used purposive sampling and invited stakeholders to participate in an online semistructured interview between March and June 2021. Themes were derived using inductive content analysis. We used a strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats matrix to categorize our findings. Twenty-seven international stakeholders participated. The interviewees pointed to several strengths and opportunities to improve completeness and robustness, mainly more transparent and systematic justifications for the included studies. However, weaknesses and threats were mentioned that could undermine efforts to enable a more thorough assessment: The interviewees stressed that current review practices are sufficient to ensure the safe conduct of first-in-human trials. They feared that changes to the IB structure or review process could overburden stakeholders and slow drug development. In principle, more robust decision-making processes align with the interests of all stakeholders and with many current initiatives to increase the translatability of preclinical research and limit uninformative or ill-justified trials early in the development process. Further research should investigate measures that could be implemented to benefit all stakeholders.

Perceptions about controlled human infection model (CHIM) studies among members of ethics committees of Indian medical institutions: A qualitative exploration

Introduction: Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies provide a unique platform for studying the pathophysiology of infectious diseases and accelerated testing of vaccines and drugs in controlled settings. However, ethical issues shroud them as the disease-causing pathogen is intentionally inoculated into healthy consenting volunteers, and effective treatment may or may not be available. We explored the perceptions of the members of institutional ethics committees (IECs) in India about CHIM studies. Methods: This qualitative exploratory study, conducted across seven sites in India, included 11 focused group discussions (FGD) and 31 in-depth interviews (IDI). A flexible approach was used with the aid of a topic guide. The data were thematically analyzed using grounded theory and an inductive approach. Emerging themes and sub-themes were analyzed, and major emergent themes were elucidated. Results: Seventy-two IEC members participated in the study including 21 basic medical scientists, 29 clinicians, 9 lay people, 6 legal experts and 7 social scientists. Three major themes emerged from this analysis-apprehensions about conduct of CHIM studies in India, a perceived need for CHIM studies in India and risk mitigation measures needed to protect research participants and minimize the associated risks. Conclusion: Development of a specific regulatory and ethical framework, training of research staff and ethics committee members, and ensuring specialized research infrastructure along with adequate community sensitization were considered essential before initiation of CHIM studies in India.