Ethical review of health systems research in low- and middle-income countries: a conceptual exploration

The hidden emotional labour behind ensuring the social value of research: Experiences of frontline health policy and systems researchers based in Kenya during COVID-19

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a multi-disciplinary, largely applied field of research aimed at understanding and strengthening the performance of health systems, often with an emphasis on power, policy and equity. The value of embedded and participatory HPSR specifically in facilitating the collection of rich data that is relevant to addressing real-world challenges is increasingly recognised. However, the potential contributions and challenges of HPSR in the context of shocks and crises are not well documented, with a particular gap in the literature being the experiences and coping strategies of the HPSR researchers who are embedded in health systems in resource constrained settings. In this paper, we draw on two sets of group discussions held among a group of approximately 15 HPSR researchers based in Nairobi, Kenya, who were conducting a range of embedded HPSR studies throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. The researchers, including many of the authors, were employed by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP), which is a long-standing multi-disciplinary partnership between the Kenya Medical Research Institute and the Wellcome Trust with a central goal of contributing to national and international health policy and practice. We share our findings in relation to three inter-related themes: 1) Ensuring the continued social value of our HPSR work in the face of changing priorities; 2) Responding to shifting ethical procedures and processes at institutional and national levels; and 3) Protecting our own and front-line colleagues' well-being, including clinical colleagues. Our experiences highlight that in navigating research work and responsibilities to colleagues, patients and participants through the pandemic, many embedded HPSR staff faced difficult emotional and ethical challenges, including heightened forms of moral distress, which may have been better prevented and supported. We draw on our findings and the wider literature to discuss considerations for funders and research leads with an eye to strengthening support for embedded HPSR staff, not only in crises such as the on-going COVID-19 pandemic, but also more generally.

Making research ethics work for global health: towards a more agile and collaborative approach

In this reflective essay, we seek to engage in a constructive dialogue with scholars across medicine, public health and anthropology on research ethics practices. Drawing on anthropological research and ethical dilemmas that our colleagues and we encountered as medical anthropologists, we reflect on presumed and institutionalised 'best' practices such as mandatory written informed consent, and problematise how they are implemented in interdisciplinary global health research projects. We demonstrate that mandatory, individualised, written, informed consent may be unsuitable in many contexts and also identify reasons why tensions between professionals in interdisciplinary teams may arise when decisions about ethics procedures are taken. We propose alternatives to written informed consent that acknowledge research governance requirements and contextual realities and leave more room for ethnographic approaches. Beyond informed consent, we also explore the situatedness of ethical practices when working in contexts where decision-making around health is clearly a shared concern. We use vignettes based on our own and colleagues' experiences to illustrate our arguments, using the collective 'we' instead of 'I' in our vignettes to protect our research participants, partners and interlocutors. We propose a decolonial, plural and vernacular approach to informed consent specifically, and research ethics more broadly. We contend that ethics procedures and frameworks need to become more agile, decolonial, pluralised and vernacularised to enable achieving congruence between communities' ideas of social justice and institutional ethics. We argue that global health research can benefit from anthropology's engagement with situated ethics and consent that is relational, negotiated and processual; and accountability that is not only bureaucratic but also constructive. In doing so, we hope to broaden ethical praxis so that the best outcomes that are also just, fair and equitable can be achieved for all stakeholders.

Addressing conflicts of interest of ethical reviewers of health planning, management, policy and systems research proposals

Steering health systems towards universal health coverage requires research on themes that are of particular interest to health planning, management, policy and systems researchers. Some issues, such as strikes regarded as illegal and health sector corruption, because of their social and political sensitivity have, for too long, remained outside adequate research inquiry. Their emergence in the research agenda raises some challenges for Human Research Ethics Committees, particularly related to their conflicts of interests as reviewers, that need clarification.

Research for Health Justice: an ethical framework linking global health research to health equity

Global health research should generate new knowledge to improve the health and well-being of those considered disadvantaged and marginalised. This goal motivates much of the global health research being undertaken today. Yet simply funding and conducting global health research will not necessarily generate the knowledge needed to help reduce health disparities between and within countries. Global health research grants programmes and projects must be structured in a particular way to generate that type of information. But how exactly should they be designed to do so? Through a programme of ethics research starting in 2009, an ethical framework called Research for Health Justice was developed that provides guidance to global health researchers and funders on how to design research projects and grants programmes to promote global health equity. It provides guidance on, for example, what research populations and questions ought to be selected, what research capacity strengthening ought to be performed and what post-study benefits ought to be provided. This paper describes how the ‘research for health justice’ framework was generated and pulls together a body of work spanning the last decade to provide a comprehensive and up-to-date version of its guidance.

Justice: a key consideration in health policy and systems research ethics

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is increasingly being funded and conducted worldwide. There are currently no specific guidelines or criteria for the ethical review and conduct of HPSR. Academic debates on HPSR ethics in the scholarly literature can inform the development of guidelines. Yet there is a deficiency of academic bioethics work relating to justice in HPSR. This gap is especially problematic for a field like HPSR, which can entail studies that intervene in ways affecting the social and health system delivery structures of society. In this paper, we call for interpreting the principle of justice in a more expansive way in developing and reviewing HPSR studies (relative to biomedical research). The principle requires advancing health equity and social justice at population or systems levels. Drawing on the rich justice literature from political philosophy and public health ethics, we propose a set of essential justice considerations to uphold this principle. These considerations are relevant for research funders, researchers, research ethics committees, policymakers, community organisations and others who are active in the HPSR field.

Systems thinking and ethics in public health: a necessary and mutually beneficial partnership

Systems thinking has emerged as a means of conceptualizing and addressing complex public health problems, thereby challenging more commonplace understanding of problems and corresponding solutions as straightforward explanations of cause and effect. Systems thinking tries to address the complexity of problems through qualitative and quantitative modeling based on a variety of systems theories, each with their own assumptions and, more importantly, implicit and unexamined values. To date, however, there has been little engagement between systems scientists and those working in bioethics and public health ethics. The goal of this paper is to begin to consider what it might mean to combine systems thinking with public health ethics to solve public health challenges. We argue that there is a role for ethics in systems thinking in public health as a means of elucidating implicit assumptions and facilitating ethics debate and dialogue with key stakeholders.

Does Resolution 8430 of 1993 respond to the current needs of ethics in health research with human beings in Colombia?

Verifying the compliance with the ethical principles of health research legitimizes its exercise in the eyes of the society and allows for the resolution of ethical dilemmas that emerge from new research interests and methods. Resolution 8430 of 1993 is one of the main ethical guidelines governing health research on human beings in Colombia. Considering that the resolution has not been revised or updated since its promulgation it becomes necessary to evaluate its current validity and adequacy to address the potential ethical dilemmas in the existing country’s health research. Some gaps, contradictions, and aspects that require a deep review are detailed in this paper from a wide conception of health research areas and methods. After discussing the main weaknesses and inaccuracies, some alternatives are proposed to adjust the resolution to the present needs in health research with human beings.

Indian Council of Medical Research's National Ethical Guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants: The way forward from 2006 to 2017

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recently published the third revised guidelines "National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health-Related Research Involving Human Participants" in 2017. The changes to the guidelines were needed to acculturate the rapid advances in the research environment and advances in science and technology. The revised guidelines propose substantial changes/ modifications compared to the previous version. These include the introduction of broad consent, ethical issues related to deception, review of multi-centric research by a single ethics committee and ethical issues involved in implementation research and other issues related to public health research. The revised guidelines also incorporate modifications and minor changes to the previous version. Although most of the changes in the revised guidelines are in parallel to most of the international guidelines, we have also highlighted the minor differences compared to other international guidelines.

Providing monetary and non-monetary goods to research participants: perspectives and practices of researchers and Research Ethics Committees in Zambia

There are disagreements among ethicists on what comprises an "appropriate" good to offer research participants. Debates often focus on the type, quantity, timing, and ethical appropriateness of such offers, particularly in settings where participants may be socio-economically vulnerable, such as in parts of Zambia. This was a Cross-sectional online survey of researchers and Research Ethics Committees (RECs) designed to understand practices, attitudes and policies associated with provision of goods to research participants. Of 122 responding researchers, 69 met eligibility criteria. Responses were also received from five of the six Zambian RECs involved in reviewing research proposals. Forty-nine researchers (71.0%) confirmed previous experience offering goods to participants. Of these, 21 (42.9%) offered participants money only, 18 (36.7%) offered non-monetary goods, while the rest offered both monetary and non-monetary goods. Generally, goods were offered and approved by RECs to compensate for time, lost wages and transportation. One REC and 34.8% of researchers reported being subject to an institutional policy on offering goods to participants. While reimbursement is the main reason for offering goods to participants in Zambia, caution is required when deciding on the type and quantity of goods to offer given the potential for community mistrust and manipulation.

Linking Participatory Action Research on Health Systems to Justice in Global Health: A Case Study of the Maternal and Neonatal Implementation for Equitable Health Systems Project in Rural Uganda

An ethical framework called "research for health justice" provides initial guidance on how to link health systems research in low- and middle-income countries to health equity. To further develop the largely conceptual framework, we tested its guidance against the experience of the Maternal and Neonatal Implementation for Equitable Health Systems (Manifest) project, which was performed in rural Uganda by researchers from Makerere University. We conducted 21 in-depth interviews with investigators and research implementers, directly observed study sites, and reviewed study-related documents. Our analysis identifies where alignment exists between the framework's guidance and the Manifest project, providing initial lessons on how that was achieved. It also identifies where nonalignment occurred and gaps in the framework's guidance. Suggestions are then made for revising and expanding "research for health justice."

Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues

Given the focus on health systems in the post-millennium development goal era and moving towards the sustainable development goals, there is a compelling need for a common framework for health policy and systems research ethics to guide researchers and facilitate review by research ethics committees. A consultation of global health policy and systems research and ethics experts was convened to identify ethical considerations relevant to health policy and systems research based on existing knowledge and to identify knowledge gaps through a scoping review and further expert deliberation. Health policy and systems research is highly complex and, in the absence of guidance documents, there is significant variability in ethics review. Although fundamental ethical principles pertain to both traditional clinical research and health policy and systems research, the application of these principles requires a comprehensive understanding of the nature of health policy and systems research with its distinct challenges. Such awareness must be raised among researchers and research ethics committees. Current research ethics committees lack familiarity with health policy and systems research and because health policy and systems research is conducted in real-world contexts, committees often have difficulties in determining whether a project is indeed research and/or requires ethical review. Given the strong current focus on health policy and systems research to rapidly improve health and health systems functioning globally, greater engagement and dialogue around the ethical concerns is required to optimise research review and research conduct in this rapidly evolving field.

Health incentive research and social justice: does the risk of long term harms to systematically disadvantaged groups bear consideration?

The ethics of health incentive research-a form of public health research-are not well developed, and concerns of justice have been least examined. In this paper, we explore what potential long term harms in relation to justice may occur as a result of such research and whether they should be considered as part of its ethical evaluation. 'Long term harms' are defined as harms that contribute to existing systematic patterns of disadvantage for groups. Their effects are experienced on a long term basis, persisting even once an incentive research project ends. We will first establish that three categories of such harms potentially arise as a result of health incentive interventions. We then argue that the risk of these harms also constitutes a morally relevant consideration for health incentive research and suggest who may be responsible for assessing and mitigating these risks. We propose that responsibility should be assigned on the basis of who initiates health incentive research projects. Finally, we briefly describe possible strategies to prevent or mitigate the risk of long term harms to members of disadvantaged groups, which can be employed during the design, conduct and dissemination of research projects.

Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Implementation research (IR) is growing in recognition as an important generator of practical knowledge that can be translated into health policy. With its aim to answer questions about how to improve access to interventions that have been shown to work but have not reached many of the people who could benefit from them, IR involves a range of particular ethical considerations that have not yet been comprehensively covered in international guidelines on health research ethics. The fundamental ethical principles governing clinical research apply equally in IR, but the application of these principles may differ depending on the IR question, context, and the nature of the proposed intervention. IR questions cover a broad range of topics that focus on improving health system functioning and improving equitable and just access to effective health care interventions. As such, IR designs are flexible and often innovative, and ethical principles cannot simply be extrapolated from their applications in clinical research. Meaningful engagement with all stakeholders including communities and research participants is a fundamental ethical requirement that cuts across all study phases of IR and links most ethical concerns. Careful modification of the informed consent process may be required in IR to permit study of a needed intervention. The risks associated with IR may be difficult to anticipate and may be very context-specific. The benefits of IR may not accrue to the same groups who participate in the research, therefore justifying the risks versus benefits of IR may be ethically challenging. The expectation that knowledge generated through IR should be rapidly translated into health policy and practice necessitates up-front commitments from decision-makers to sustainability and scalability of effective interventions. Greater awareness of the particular ethical implications of the features of IR is urgently needed to facilitate optimal ethical conduct of IR and uniform ethical review.

How can health systems research reach the worst-off? A conceptual exploration

BACKGROUND

Health systems research is increasingly being conducted in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). Such research should aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries as a matter of global justice. For such research to do so, ethical guidance that is consistent with egalitarian theories of social justice proposes it ought to (amongst other things) focus on worst-off countries and research populations. Yet who constitutes the worst-off is not well-defined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

By applying existing work on disadvantage from political philosophy, the paper demonstrates that (at least) two options exist for how to define the worst-off upon whom equity-oriented health systems research should focus: those who are worst-off in terms of health or those who are systematically disadvantaged. The paper describes in detail how both concepts can be understood and what metrics can be relied upon to identify worst-off countries and research populations at the sub-national level (groups, communities). To demonstrate how each can be used, the paper considers two real-world cases of health systems research and whether their choice of country (Uganda, India) and research population in 2011 would have been classified as amongst the worst-off according to the proposed concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

The two proposed concepts can classify different countries and sub-national populations as worst-off. It is recommended that health researchers (or other actors) should use the concept that best reflects their moral commitments-namely, to perform research focused on reducing health inequalities or systematic disadvantage more broadly. If addressing the latter, it is recommended that they rely on the multidimensional poverty approach rather than the income approach to identify worst-off populations.

Governance of Transnational Global Health Research Consortia and Health Equity

Global health research partnerships are increasingly taking the form of consortia of institutions from high-income countries and low- and middle-income countries that undertake programs of research. These partnerships differ from collaborations that carry out single projects in the multiplicity of their goals, scope of their activities, and nature of their management. Although such consortia typically aim to reduce health disparities between and within countries, what is required for them to do so has not been clearly defined. This article takes a conceptual approach to explore how the governance of transnational global health research consortia should be structured to advance health equity. To do so, it applies an account called shared health governance to derive procedural and substantive guidance. A checklist based on this guidance is proposed to assist research consortia determine where their governance practices strongly promote equity and where they may fall short.

Ethical challenges in designing and conducting medicine quality surveys

OBJECTIVES

In this paper we discuss the main ethical challenges related to the conduct of medicine quality surveys and make suggestions on how to address them.

METHOD

Most evidence-based information regarding medicine quality derives from surveys. However, existing research ethical guidelines do not provide specific guidance for medicine quality surveys. Hence, those conducting surveys are often left wondering how to judge what counts as best practice. A list of the main ethical challenges in the design and conduct of surveys is presented.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS

It is vital that the design and conduct of medicine quality surveys uphold moral and ethical obligations and analyse the ethical implications and consequences of such work. These aspects include the impact on the local availability of and access to medicines; the confidentiality and privacy of the surveyors and the surveyed; questions as to whether outlet staff personnel should be told they are part of a survey; the need of ethical and regulatory approvals; and how the findings should be disseminated. Medicine quality surveys should ideally be conducted in partnership with the relevant national Medicine Regulatory Authorities. An international, but contextually sensitive, model of good ethical practice for such surveys is needed.

Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the proportion of participants in clinical trials who understand different components of informed consent.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified by a systematic review of PubMed, Scopus and Google Scholar and by manually reviewing reference lists for publications up to October 2013. A meta-analysis of study results was performed using a random-effects model to take account of heterogeneity.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 103 studies evaluating 135 cohorts of participants. The pooled proportion of participants who understood components of informed consent was 75.8% for freedom to withdraw at any time, 74.7% for the nature of study, 74.7% for the voluntary nature of participation, 74.0% for potential benefits, 69.6% for the study's purpose, 67.0% for potential risks and side-effects, 66.2% for confidentiality, 64.1% for the availability of alternative treatment if withdrawn, 62.9% for knowing that treatments were being compared, 53.3% for placebo and 52.1% for randomization. Most participants, 62.4%, had no therapeutic misconceptions and 54.9% could name at least one risk. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses identified covariates, such as age, educational level, critical illness, the study phase and location, that significantly affected understanding and indicated that the proportion of participants who understood informed consent had not increased over 30 years.

CONCLUSION

The proportion of participants in clinical trials who understood different components of informed consent varied from 52.1% to 75.8%. Investigators could do more to help participants achieve a complete understanding.

Global justice and health systems research in low- and middle-income countries

Scholarship focusing on how international research can contribute to justice in global health has primarily explored requirements for the conduct of clinical trials. Yet health systems research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has increasingly been identified as vital to the reduction of health disparities between and within countries. This paper expands an existing ethical framework based on the health capability paradigm - research for health justice - to externally-funded health systems research in LMICs. It argues that a specific form of health systems research in LMICs is required if the enterprise is to advance global health equity. "Research for health justice" requirements for priority setting, research capacity strengthening, and post-study benefits in health systems research are derived in light of the field's distinctive characteristics. Specific obligations are established for external research actors, including governments, funders, sponsors, and investigators. How these framework requirements differ from those for international clinical research is discussed.

The ethics of health systems research in low- and middle-income countries: a call to action

The increasing conduct of health systems research (HSR) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not been matched by concurrent work to clarify the field's ethical dimensions. To begin to address this gap, a two-day workshop on the ethics of HSR in LMICs was convened at Johns Hopkins University in June 2013. Participants included health systems researchers, philosophers, lawyers, bioethicists and institutional review board members from Botswana, Uganda, the UK, USA and Zambia. Based on discussions from the workshop, the paper affirms that, while HSR in LMICs raises ethical issues in relation to constructs (i.e. consent, risk, equipoise) common to international clinical research, the nature of the issues that arise often differ between the two fields. Three salient features of HSR and the ethical considerations associated with each of them in LMICs are described to demonstrate this point. Recommendations for institutional review boards' oversight of HSR in LMICs are presented. Finally, a call is made for further action to develop thinking and guidance around the ethics of HSR in resource-poor settings.