Suchergebnisse

In South Africa, biomedical research cannot commence until it has been reviewed and approved by a local research ethics committee (REC). There remains a dearth of empirical data on the nature and frequency of ethical issues raised by such committees. This study sought to identify ethical concerns typically raised by two South African RECs. Meeting minutes for 180 protocols reviewed between 2009 and 2014 were coded and analyzed using a preexisting framework. Results showed that the most frequent queries involved informed consent, respect for participants, and scientific validity. Interestingly, administrative issues (non-ethical) such as missing researchers' CVs and financial contracts emerged more frequently than ethical questions such as favorable risk/benefit ratio and fair participant selection. Although not generalizable to all RECs, our data provide insights into two South African RECs' review concerns. More education and awareness of the actual ethical issues typically raised by such committees might help improve review outcomes and relationships between researchers and RECs.

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) are mandated to protect human participants by conducting ethical reviews of biomedical research. To date, there is a dearth of information on the structure, functioning, and outcomes of RECs in Africa. This article reviews empirical studies investigating African RECs, with the aim of providing an overview of what is known and identifying gaps in our knowledge. We conducted a literature search of the EBSCO, PubMed, and Google Scholar electronic databases. Twenty-three empirical studies reporting on the structure, functions, and outcomes of African RECs were included in our analysis. The review yielded limited systematic data on RECs in Africa. Available empirical evidence suggests that challenges hampering the effective functioning of RECs included lack of membership diversity, scarcity of resources, insufficient training of members, inadequate capacity to review and monitor studies, and lack of national ethics guidelines and accreditation. Relatively little data on the review outcomes of African RECs were described. There is an ongoing need for concerted efforts from various stakeholders to support capacity development and enhancement of African RECs.

The conceptual complexity of the term voluntariness has resulted in relatively few empirical studies of the voluntariness component of consent to research. As the call for a formal assessment of voluntariness to be incorporated into the consent process intensifies, more researchers are responding to the challenge of developing a valid and reliable measure of voluntariness. The purpose of this article was to summarize and describe the empirical literature on voluntariness of consent. As part of a broader study on the voluntariness of consent to research, existing empirical studies of voluntariness of consent to research were reviewed to establish how voluntariness of consent to research has been assessed to date. Fifteen studies using different voluntariness assessment instruments were identified and included in the review. The review found that little attempt has been made to systematically collect data on the reliability and validity of voluntariness assessment instruments. No two instruments reviewed were found to be based on a shared conceptualization of voluntary consent to research.

We report the findings of a preliminary study of social science researchers' experiences of ethics review from a developing country perspective. Social science researchers' experiences of ethics review were coded as negative (42.6%), positive (21.3%), or mixed (36.2%). Ethics review was primarily experienced as negative for pragmatic reasons such as slow turnaround time, inadequate review and problems with the centralization of review. Our finding that South African researchers experience the same problems and frustrations with RECs as developed country researchers affirms that South Africa's problems with ethics review are not due to it being a less developed system, but to general review practices as they arise naturally in institutions. Developing countries thus have a unique opportunity to learn from the reported dissatisfactions and mistakes of developed countries, to avoid procedures that have hindered ethics review of much social science research in developed countries, and to fashion their own review procedures in ways that are more appropriate to key ethical issues arising in social science research and local conditions and resources.

HIV prevention trials provide a prevention package to participants to help prevent HIV acquisition. As new prevention methods are proven effective, this raises ethical and scientific design complexities regarding the prevention package or standard of prevention. Given its high HIV incidence and prevalence, South Africa has become a hub for HIV prevention research. For this reason, it is critical to study the implementation of relevant ethical-legal frameworks for such research in South Africa. This qualitative study used in-depth interviews to explore the practices and perspectives of eight members of South African research ethics committees (RECs) who have reviewed protocols for HIV vaccine trials. Their practices and perspectives are compared with ethics guideline requirements for standards of prevention.

Journal editors instruct authors to describe human participant protections in original research reports. However, little is known about African biomedical journal authors' adherence to such journal editors' instructions. This study investigated changes in editors' instructions to authors and authors' reporting of research ethics information in selected African biomedical journals between 2008 and 2017. Twelve selected journal websites and online articles were reviewed in Eastern, Southern, and Western African [ESWA] countries. A pre-tested schema and a checklist were used to collect data from journal websites and articles published in 2008 and 2017, and the data were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Half of the journals requested prospective authors to disclose ethics approval and related issues in their manuscripts between 2008 and 2017. There was a significant increase in instructions to authors regarding information on the protection of research participants within this period; more authors complied with these requirements in 2017 than in 2007.

Concern has been voiced in the research ethics literature that under U.S. federal regulations U.S. sponsors, particularly the NIH, are not required to provide compensation for the treatment of research-related injury for trial participants or to allow grant funds to be used by investigators for appropriate insurance. This is problematic in developing country contexts because most participants are unlikely to have health insurance, resulting in overburdened and under-resourced health systems in many developing countries being responsible for providing care and treatment for research-related injury. This study provides preliminary insight into how respondent principal investigators of NIH-sponsored HIV/AIDS clinical trials in Africa and African research ethics committees deal with compensation for research-related injury. The majority of PIs surveyed provided free treatment for research-related injury, but few provided other forms of financial reparation to participants. The study also found that half of the PIs surveyed indicated that NIH funds were used for compensation, highlighting a contradiction between literature and practice. The majority of REC chairs surveyed indicated that their RECs routinely reviewed compensation plans for research-related injury and that their ethics application forms specifically requested information on compensation. Findings from one southern African country revealed that NIH funds were not used to provide treatment and/or financial reparation for research-related injury. Instead, PIs from this country relied on the government or the individual research participant (and/or their medical aid/health insurer) to cover the costs of research-related injury. The findings are discussed in the light of the recent (December 2011) U.S. Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethics report which recommends that research participants are morally entitled to compensation for research-related injury.

This study asked a sample of 487 South African clinical psychologists to describe situations that they identified as ethically troubling. Forty-nine psychologists described 51 incidents that were categorized according to Pope and Vetter's (1992) system. Psychologists most often described dilemmas involving confidentiality, followed by dual relationship dilemmas. These ethical concerns are presented and discussed in the light of current South African ethical codes and relevant professional literature. The results are compared with six similar international studies. Results suggest that the concerns voiced by South African psychologists resemble those raised by their international colleagues. Similarities with findings from the United States and Finland may be the most marked. These results are discussed in the light of current professional trends. Implications for the development of specific ethical guidelines and professional education are also discussed.

The Emanuel, Wendler, and Grady framework was designed as a universal tool for use in many settings including developing countries. However, it is not known whether the work of African health research ethics committees (RECs) is compatible with this framework. The absence of any normative or empirical weighting of the eight principles within this framework suggests that different health RECs may raise some ethical issues more frequently than others when reviewing protocols. We used the Emanuel et al. framework to assess, code, and rank the most frequent ethical issues considered by a biomedical REC during review of research protocols for the years 2008 to 2012. We extracted data from the recorded minutes of a South African biomedical REC for the years 2008 to 2012, designed the data collection sheet according to the Emanuel et al. framework, and removed all identifiers during data processing and analysis. From the 98 protocols that we assessed, the most frequent issues that emerged were the informed consent, scientific validity, fair participant selection, and ongoing respect for participants. This study represents the first known attempt to analyze REC responses/minutes using the Emanuel et al. framework, and suggests that this framework may be useful in describing and categorizing the core activities of an REC.

The use of phylogenetics in HIV molecular epidemiology has considerably increased our ability to understand the origin, spread, and characteristics of HIV epidemics. Despite its potential to advance knowledge on HIV transmission dynamics, the ethical issues associated with HIV molecular epidemiology have received minimal attention. In-depth interviews were conducted with scientists from diverse backgrounds to explore their perspectives on ethical issues associated with phylogenetic analysis of HIV genetic data as applied to HIV transmission dynamics studies. The Emanuel framework was used as the analytical framework. Favorable risk–benefit ratio and informed consent were the most invoked ethical principles and fair participant selection the least. Fear of loss of privacy and disclosure of HIV transmission were invariably cited as key ethical concerns. As HIV sequence data become increasingly available, comprehensive guidelines should be developed to guide its access, sharing and use, cognizant of the potential harms that may result.

Concerns have been raised about the limits of understanding of consent by clinical trial participants in developing countries. Consequently, this empirical study was conducted in Malawi to assess microbicide trial participants' understanding of randomization, double-blinding, and placebo use. The study used a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, including structured questionnaire interviews with a random sample of 203 individual participants, four in-depth interviews with research nurses, and two focus group discussions with 18 study participants. Most respondents earned high scores on questions related to randomization (85%) and placebo use (72%), while a greater proportion of the same respondents obtained low scores on questions related to double-blinding (68%) and personal implications of the study procedures (63%). Overall, most respondents (61%; n = 124) obtained low scores on combined understanding of all the three concepts under study.