The Emergence of Clinical Research Ethics Consultation: Insights From a National Collaborative

The role of ethicists in pediatric hematology/oncology: Current status and future needs

As pediatric hematology/oncology (PHO) becomes more complex and sub-subspecialized, dedicated PHO ethicists have emerged as sub-subspecialists focused on addressing ethical issues encountered in clinical and research practices. PHO physicians and other clinicians with advanced training in bioethics contribute to the field through ethics research, education, and ethics consultation services. Furthermore, there exists a newer generation of PHO trainees interested in bioethics. This review details the experiences of current PHO ethicists, providing a blueprint for future educational, research and service activities to strengthen the trajectory of the burgeoning sub-subspecialty of PHO ethics. Creating an American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology (ASPHO) ethics Special Interest Group, enhancing clinical ethics education for pediatric hematologists/oncologists (PHOs), developing multi-institutional research collaborations, and increasing attention to ethical issues germane to nonmalignant hematology will serve the interests of the entire field of PHO, enhancing the care of PHO patients and careers of PHOs.

Current landscape of research ethics consultation services: National survey results

Introduction

The goal of a research ethics consultation service (RECS) is to assist relevant parties in navigating the ethical issues they encounter in conduct of research. The goal of this survey was to describe the current landscape of research ethics consultation and document if and how it has changed over the last decade.

Methods

The survey instrument was based on the survey previously circulated. We included a number of survey domains from the previous survey with the goal of direct comparison of outcomes. The survey was sent to 57 RECS in the USA and Canada.

Results

Forty-nine surveys were completed for an overall response rate of 86%. With the passing of 10 years, the volume of consults received by RECS surveyed has increased. The number of consults received by a subset of RECS remains low. RECS continues to receive requests for consults from a wide range of stakeholders. About a quarter of RECS surveyed actively evaluate their services, primarily through satisfaction surveys routinely shared with requestors. The number of RECS evaluating their services has increased. We identified a group of eight key competencies respondents find as key to providing RECS.

Conclusions

The findings from our survey demonstrate that there have been growth and development of RECS since 2010. Further developing evaluation and competency guidelines will help existing RECS continue to grow and facilitate newly established RECS maturation. Both will allow RECS personnel to better serve their institutions and add value to the research conducted.

Research Ethics for Behavior Analysts in Practice

Behavior analysts in practice have an advantage over many others in the helping professions-they have at their disposal a robust science of behavior change informed primarily by single-case experimental research designs. This is advantageous because the research literature is focused on individual behavior change and has direct relevance to behavior analysts who need to change the behavior of individuals in need. Also, the same experimental designs used to advance the basic and applied sciences can be used to evaluate and refine specific procedures as they are put into practice. Thus, behavior-analytic research and practice are often intertwined. However, when behavior analysts in practice conduct research and use their own clients as participants, several important ethical issues need to be considered. Research with human participants is subject to careful ethical oversight, but the ethical guidelines that have been developed are usually described in terms of research conducted by nonpractitioners working in universities or institutions. This article focuses on several areas of special concern when conducting research in practice settings, including dual relationships and conflicts of interest, obtaining informed consent, and using ethical review panels.

Optimizing Ethics Engagement in Research: Learning from the Ethical Complexities of Studying Opioid Use in Pregnancy

Research on opioid use in pregnancy is critically important to understand how the opioid epidemic has affected a generation of children, but also raises significant ethical and legal challenges. Embedded ethicists can help to fill the gaps in ethics oversight for such research, but further guidance is needed to help strike the balance between integration and independence.

Health care ethics programs in U.S. Hospitals: results from a National Survey

BACKGROUND

As hospitals have grown more complex, the ethical concerns they confront have grown correspondingly complicated. Many hospitals have consequently developed health care ethics programs (HCEPs) that include far more than ethics consultation services alone. Yet systematic research on these programs is lacking.

METHODS

Based on a national, cross-sectional survey of a stratified sample of 600 US hospitals, we report on the prevalence, scope, activities, staffing, workload, financial compensation, and greatest challenges facing HCEPs.

RESULTS

Among 372 hospitals whose informants responded to an online survey, 97% of hospitals have HCEPs. Their scope includes clinical ethics functions in virtually all hospitals, but includes other functions in far fewer hospitals: ethical leadership (35.7%), regulatory compliance (29.0%), business ethics (26.2%), and research ethics (12.6%). HCEPs are responsible for providing ongoing ethics education to various target audiences including all staff (77.0%), nurses (59.9%), staff physicians (49.0%), hospital leadership (44.2%), medical residents (20.3%) and the community/general public (18.4%). HCEPs staff are most commonly involved in policy work through review of existing policies but are less often involved in development of new policies. HCEPs have an ethics representative in executive leadership in 80.5% of hospitals, have representation on other hospital committees in 40.7%, are actively engaged in community outreach in 22.6%, and lead large-scale ethics quality improvement initiatives in 17.7%. In general, major teaching hospitals and urban hospitals have the most highly integrated ethics programs with the broadest scope and greatest number of activities. Larger hospitals, academically affiliated hospitals, and urban hospitals have significantly more individuals performing HCEP work and significantly more individuals receiving financial compensation specifically for that work. Overall, the most common greatest challenge facing HCEPs is resource shortages, whereas underutilization is the most common greatest challenge for hospitals with fewer than 100 beds. Respondents' strategies for managing challenges include staff training and additional funds.

CONCLUSIONS

While this study must be cautiously interpreted due to its limitations, the findings may be useful for understanding the characteristics of HCEPs in US hospitals and the factors associated with these characteristics. This information may contribute to exploring ways to strengthen HCEPs.

Reflecting on Responsible Conduct of Research: A Self Study of a Research-Oriented University Community

Research-oriented universities are known for prolific research activity that is often supported by students in faculty-guided research. To maintain ethical standards, universities require on-going training of both faculty and students to ensure Responsible Conduct of Research (RCR). However, previous research has indicated RCR-based training is insufficient to address the ethical dilemmas that are prevalent within academic settings: navigating issues of authorship, modeling relationships between faculty and students, minimization of risk, and adequate informed consent. U.S. universities must explore ways to identify and improve RCR concerns for current (faculty) and future researchers (students). This article reports the findings of a self-study (N = 50) of research stakeholders (students and faculty) at a top tier research institution. First, we report on their perceived importance of applying RCR principles. Second, we explore relationships between stakeholder backgrounds (e.g., prior training, field, and position) and how they ranked the degree of ethical concerns in fictitious vignettes that presented different unethical issues university students could encounter when conducting research. Vignette rankings suggested concerns of inappropriate relationships, predatory authorship and IRB violations which were judged as most unethical, which was dissimilar to what sampled researchers reported in practice as the most important RCR elements to understand and adhere to for successful research. Regression models indicated there was no significant relationship between individuals’ vignette ethics scores and backgrounds, affirming previous literature suggesting that training can be ineffectual in shifting researcher judgments of ethical dilemmas. Recommendations for training are discussed.

Comparison Is Not a Zero-Sum Game: Exploring Advanced Measures of Healthcare Ethics Consultation

Studies across the healthcare spectrum consistently show that sharing and comparing data across institutions improves the quality of patient care. Whether comparing data about healthcare ethics consultation (HCEC) would similarly improve quality is unknown due to the lack of research on HCEC data sharing and comparison. Methods: To explore this possibility, we analyzed data from two academic medical centers in the Central-Southern United States that both employ a shared, robust coding system for ethics consultations (N = 703 cases total over 2.5 years) using descriptive and chi-square statistics, correlation coefficients and logistic regressions. Results: Our findings relate to patient age, care location, requestor role, and ethical themes, which together contribute to an improved evidence base for explanatory analyses and quality improvement initiatives. Conclusions: We conclude it is possible to analyze and compare HCEC activities across separate institutions using a standardized approach to data gathering, that this approach is consistent with concurrent narrative case review and assessment, and that cross-institutional comparisons are meaningful. Our results suggest future comparative analyses will require additional standardization of advanced measures for describing and analyzing HCEC activities.

Naturally occurring language as a source of evidence in suicide prevention

We discuss computational language analysis as it pertains to suicide prevention research, with an emphasis on providing non-technologists with an understanding of key issues and, equally important, considering its relation to the broader enterprise of suicide prevention. Our emphasis here is on naturally occurring language in social media, motivated by its non-intrusive ability to yield high-value information that in the past has been largely unavailable to clinicians.

Ethical Challenges in COVID-19 Biospecimen Research: Perspectives From Institutional Review Board Members and Bioethicists

Biospecimen research is a prominent investigative strategy that aims to provide novel insights into coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), inform clinical trials, and develop effective, life-saving treatments. However, COVID-19 biospecimen research raises accompanying ethical concerns and practical challenges for investigators and participants. In this special article, we discuss the ethical issues that are associated with autonomy, beneficence, and justice in COVID-19 biospecimen research and describe strategies to manage the practical challenges, with an emphasis on protecting the rights and welfare of human research participants during a pandemic response. Appropriate institutional review board oversight and bioethics guidance for COVID-19 biospecimen research must maintain their focus on protecting the rights and welfare of research participants, despite the urgent need for more knowledge about the virus and the threat it poses to communities and nations.

Researchers' views on, and experiences with, the requirement to obtain informed consent in research involving human participants: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Informed consent is often cited as the "cornerstone" of research ethics. Its intent is that participants enter research voluntarily, with an understanding of what their participation entails. Despite agreement on the necessity to obtain informed consent in research, opinions vary on the threshold of disclosure necessary and the best method to obtain consent. We aimed to investigate Australian researchers' views on, and their experiences with, obtaining informed consent.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 23 researchers from NSW institutions, working in various fields of research. Interviews were analysed and coded to identify themes.

RESULTS

Researchers reported that consent involved information disclosure, understanding and a voluntary decision. They emphasised the variability of consent interactions, which were dependent on potential participants' abilities and interests, study complexity and context. All researchers reported providing written information to potential participants, yet questioned the readability and utility of this information. The majority reported using signed consent forms to 'operationalise' consent and reported little awareness of, and lack of support in implementing more dynamic informed consent procedures, such as verbal informed consent, that was fit for the purposes of their studies. Views on Human Research Ethics Committees (HRECs) varied. Some reported inconsistent, arduous inputs on the information form and consent process. Others expressed reliance on HRECs for guidance, viewing them as institutional safeguards.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the importance of transparent relationships, both between researchers and participants, and between researchers and HRECs. Where the relationship with study participants was reported as more robust, researchers felt that they were better able to ensure participants made better, more informed decisions. Where the relationship with HRECs was reported as more robust, researchers were more likely to view them as institutional safeguards, rather than as bureaucratic hindrances. Conscientious and mindful researchers are paramount to ensuring the procedure accommodates individual requirements. This study advocates that when designing ethical informed consent practices, researchers should be integrated as autonomous players with a positive input on the process, rather than, in the worst case, predatory recruiters to be curtailed by information forms and oversight.

Insiders and Outsiders: Lessons for Neuroethics from the History of Bioethics

Recent disputes over the NIH Neuroethics Roadmap have revealed underlying tensions between neuroethics and the broader neuroscience community. These controversies should spur neuroethicists to more clearly articulate an oft-cited ideal of "integrating" neuroethics in neuroscience. In this, it is useful to consider the integration of bioethics in medical practice as both historical precedent and context for integration in neuroethics. Bioethics began as interdisciplinary scholars joined biomedical institutions to serve on newly-created IRBs and hospital ethics committees. These early bioethicists identified as outsiders and their presence was initially resisted by some in the medical establishment, but over time they became integrated into the very institutions that many had originally come to critique. This work has transformed medical practice, but also required compromises and intellectual costs. Also, the successful integration of bioethics relied in part on structural features of postwar medicine with no clear analogue in contemporary neuroscience; for neuroethics, imaginative new approaches will also be needed. While neuroethics to date has focused somewhat narrowly on questions in neurotechnology, I argue that successful integration in neuroethics will likely require a broader vision, encompassing the clinical neurosciences as well as questions at the interface of neuroscience and society.

Awareness of Jordanian Investigators About the Importance of Ethics Review Committees: A Pilot Study

Protection of study participants is an integral function of the Institutional Review Board (IRB). Recently, great efforts were dedicated to enhance investigators' awareness of ethical principles in conducting human research and to implement reviewing committees' standards in Jordan to ensure the transparency, versatility, and responsibility in handling human subjects research in the country. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the awareness and attitudes of healthcare investigators in Jordan towards the structure and importance of IRBs. A questionnaire was distributed to 200 investigators and graduate students from the Jordan University of Science and Technology. The majority of the responses indicated positive knowledge towards core ethics guidelines and the importance of IRBs. This includes beneficence, confidentiality, informed consent, and treating participants with respect. In addition, the majority of participants (> 82%) agreed on the importance of the IRB for ensuring the rights, safety, and well-being of the research subjects. Moreover, the majority of participants (> 80%) agreed that the IRB members should be trained on ethics regulations in conducting research and declare any conflict of interest with the investigators. On the other hand, about 30% of participants believed that being reviewed by the IRB would delay research and make it more difficult for the researcher. Jordanian investigators have good awareness of and knowledge about research ethics and the importance of IRBs, though more education is needed.

The Value in Doing Something

OBJECTIVES

Evaluate the reasons why attempts at redirection, especially at the end of life, often fail, and patients and families insist on treating the underlying illness.

SETTING

Conflicts between patients and caregivers regarding the appropriate course of treatment.

MAIN RESULTS

Clinicians typically understand requests for treatment merely as means to obtain effective care. However, patients and families often request treatment as a way to exert their agency, avoid a sense of responsibility for unwanted outcomes, and express compassion.

CONCLUSIONS

In response to devastating illness, patients and families are frequently motivated by factors that go beyond obtaining effective care. Awareness of these factors can help clinicians to identify sources of potential conflict and continue to provide compassionate care.

The Responsibility to Recontact Research Participants after Reinterpretation of Genetic and Genomic Research Results

The evidence base supporting genetic and genomic sequence-variant interpretations is continuously evolving. An inherent consequence is that a variant's clinical significance might be reinterpreted over time as new evidence emerges regarding its pathogenicity or lack thereof. This raises ethical, legal, and financial issues as to whether there is a responsibility to recontact research participants to provide updates on reinterpretations of variants after the initial analysis. There has been discussion concerning the extent of this obligation in the context of both research and clinical care. Although clinical recommendations have begun to emerge, guidance is lacking on the responsibilities of researchers to inform participants of reinterpreted results. To respond, an American Society of Human Genetics (ASHG) workgroup developed this position statement, which was approved by the ASHG Board in November 2018. The workgroup included representatives from the National Society of Genetic Counselors, the Canadian College of Medical Genetics, and the Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors. The final statement includes twelve position statements that were endorsed or supported by the following organizations: Genetic Alliance, European Society of Human Genetics, Canadian Association of Genetic Counsellors, American Association of Anthropological Genetics, Executive Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Canadian College of Medical Genetics, Human Genetics Society of Australasia, and National Society of Genetic Counselors.

Resolving authorship disputes by mediation and arbitration

BACKGROUND

Disputes over authorship are increasing. This paper examines the options that researchers have in resolving authorship disputes. Discussions about authorship disputes often address how to prevent disputes but rarely address how to resolve them. Both individuals and larger research communities are harmed by the limited options for dispute resolution.

MAIN BODY

When authorship disputes arise after publication, most existing guidelines recommend that the authors work out the disputes between themselves. But this is unlikely to occur, because there are often large power differentials between team members, and institutions (e.g., universities, funding agencies) are unlikely to have authority over all team members. Other collaborative disciplines that deal with issues of collaborative creator credit could provide models for scientific authorship. Arbitration or mediation could provide solutions to authorship disputes where few presently exist. Because authors recognize journals' authority to make decisions about manuscripts submitted to the journal, journals are well placed to facilitate alternative dispute resolution processes.

CONCLUSION

Rather than viewing authorship disputes as rare events that must be handled on a case by case basis, researchers and journals should view the potential for disputes as predictable, preventable, and soluble. Independent bodies that can offer alternative dispute resolution services to scientific collaborators and/or journals could quickly help research communities, particularly their most vulnerable members.

Research ethics consultation: an attempt and 5-year experience in a Japanese University Hospital

Objective

Research ethics consultation is an advisory activity that differs from ethics committees, and its role is not yet widely known in Japan. Research ethics consultations were started in 2012 by members of the Clinical Trial Center of Tokushima University Hospital, a support section for clinical trials. We analyzed the research ethics consultation records from Tokushima University Hospital during the 5-year period of 2012–2016 to examine the Japanese context of research ethics consultation.

Results

During the study period, 125 research ethics consultations were carried out, 115 (91%) before starting studies. All but one request were from investigators at Tokushima University. The main issue was compatibility with guidance and regulations (n = 74, 67.2%), such as ethical handling of human biological specimens and information utilized in research; only 6 (4.8%) requests involved research ethics issues that investigators face in their research. Therefore, it is necessary to expand the consultation function, with a nationwide system of consultant education and data sharing. Moreover, standardization of consultation should be considered.

Beyond Open Communication: A Call for Partnership Between Clinical Ethics and Research Ethics Committees

In proposing strategies to improve access to and quality of research ethics consultation (REC) services, Porter and colleagues (2018) call for “open communication” between REC and clinical ethics consultation (CEC) services. The authors believe this proposal provides a means for addressing ethical issues occurring at the intersection of research and clinical care, as well as an opportunity for REC services to learn from quality improvement strategies of CEC services. We agree with the premises of this suggestion, yet propose that direct partnership, rather than simply open communication, between REC and CEC services can provide further benefits, including protecting patient-subjects, improving the quality of research ethics consultations, and increasing the visibility of REC services.