The Role of Solidarity in Research in Global Health Emergencies

Who to engage in HIV vaccine trial benefit-sharing negotiations? An empirical proposition of a framework

BACKGROUND

A morally sound framework for benefit-sharing is crucial to minimize research exploitation for research conducted in developing countries. However, in practice, it remains uncertain which stakeholders should be involved in the decision-making process regarding benefit-sharing and what the implications might be. Therefore the study aimed to empirically propose a framework for benefit-sharing negotiations in research by taking HIV vaccine trials as a case.

METHODS

The study was conducted in Tanzania using a case study design and qualitative approaches. Data were collected using in-depth interviews (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGD). A total of 37 study participants were selected purposively comprising institutional review board (IRB) members, researchers, community advisory board (CAB) members, a policymaker, and HIV/AIDS advocates. Deductive and inductive thematic analysis approaches were deployed to analyze collected data with the aid of MAXQDA version 20.4.0 software.

RESULTS

The findings indicate a triangular relationship between the research community, researched community and intermediaries. However, the relationship ought to take into consideration the timing of negotiations, the level of understanding between parties and the phase of the clinical trial. The proposed framework operationalize partnership interactions in community-based participatory research.

CONCLUSION

In the context of this study, the suggested framework incorporates the research community, the community being researched, and intermediary parties. The framework would guarantee well-informed and inclusive decision-making regarding benefit-sharing in HIV vaccine trials and other health-related research conducted in resource-limited settings.

Moral courage, job-esteem, and social responsibility in disaster relief nurses

BACKGROUND

Social responsibility can motivate disaster relief nurses to devote themselves to safeguarding rights and interests of people when facing challenges that threaten public health. However, few studies focused on the relationship of moral courage, job-esteem, and social responsibility among disaster relief nurses.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the influence of moral courage and job-esteem on the social responsibility in disaster relief nurses and clarify the relationship model between them.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 716 disaster relief nurses from 14 hospitals in central China through an online survey, including moral courage scale, job-esteem scale, and social responsibility questionnaire. The data were analyzed by Pearson's correlation, and the mechanism of the effect of moral courage and job-esteem on social responsibility was completed.

ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

This study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of the Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University (Approval Number: 2019016).

RESULTS

Disaster relief nurses' moral courage positively impacted social responsibility (r = 0.677, p < 0.01), and moral courage could affect social responsibility through the mediating role of job-esteem.

CONCLUSION

Job-esteem mediated between moral courage and social responsibility among disaster relief nurses. Nursing managers regular assessment of nurses' moral courage and interventions such as meetings and workshops can reduce moral distress, foster morally courageous behavior, enhance job-esteem, and improve social responsibility performance among disaster relief nurses.

Maximising impactful, locally relevant global mental health research conducted in low and middle income country settings: ethical considerations

Background: Achieving ethical and meaningful mental health research in diverse global settings requires approaches to research design, conduct, and dissemination that prioritise a contextualised approach to impact and local relevance. Method: Through three case studies presented at the 2021 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research meeting on the ethical issues arising in research with people with mental health conditions, we consider the nuances to achieving ethical and meaningful mental health research in three diverse settings. The case studies include research with refugees Rwanda and Uganda; a neurodevelopmental cohort study in a low resource setting in India, and research with Syrian refugees displaced across the Middle East. Results: Key considerations highlighted across the case studies include how mental health is understood and experienced in diverse contexts to ensure respectful engagement with communities, and to inform the selection of contextually-appropriate and feasible research methods and tools to achieve meaningful data collection.  Related to this is a need to consider how communities understand and engage with research to avoid therapeutic misconception, exacerbating stigma, or creating undue inducement for research participation, whilst also ensuring meaningful benefit for research participation. Central to achieving these is the meaningful integration of the views and perspectives of local stakeholders to inform research design, conduct, and legacy. The case studies foreground the potential tensions between meeting local community needs through the implementation of an intervention, and attaining standards of scientific rigor in research design and methods; and between adherence to procedural ethical requirements such as ethical review and documenting informed consent, and ethical practice through attention to the needs of the local research team. Conclusions: We conclude that engagement with how to achieve local relevance and social, practice, and academic impact offer productive ways for researchers to promote ethical research that prioritises values of solidarity, inclusion, and mutual respect.

Maximising impactful and locally relevant mental health research: ethical considerations

Background: Achieving ethical and meaningful mental health research in diverse global settings requires approaches to research design, conduct, and dissemination that prioritise a contextualised approach to impact and local relevance. Method: Through three case studies presented at the 2021 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research meeting on the ethical issues arising in research with people with mental health conditions, we consider the nuances to achieving ethical and meaningful mental health research in three diverse settings. The case studies include research with refugees Rwanda and Uganda; a neurodevelopmental cohort study in a low resource setting in India, and research with Syrian refugees displaced across the Middle East. Results: Key considerations highlighted across the case studies include how mental health is understood and experienced in diverse contexts to ensure respectful engagement with communities, and to inform the selection of contextually-appropriate and feasible research methods and tools to achieve meaningful data collection.  Related to this is a need to consider how communities understand and engage with research to avoid therapeutic misconception, exacerbating stigma, or creating undue inducement for research participation, whilst also ensuring meaningful benefit for research participation. Central to achieving these is the meaningful integration of the views and perspectives of local stakeholders to inform research design, conduct, and legacy. The case studies foreground the potential tensions between meeting local community needs through the implementation of an intervention, and attaining standards of scientific rigor in research design and methods; and between adherence to procedural ethical requirements such as ethical review and documenting informed consent, and ethical practice through attention to the needs of the local research team. Conclusions: We conclude that engagement with how to achieve local relevance and social, practice, and academic impact offer productive ways for researchers to promote ethical research that prioritises values of solidarity, inclusion, and mutual respect.

Solidarity is for other people: identifying derelictions of solidarity in responses to COVID-19

The role and importance of solidarity for effective health provision is the subject of lengthy and heated debate which has been thrown into even sharper relief by the COVID-19 pandemic. In various ways, and by various authorities we have all been asked, even instructed, to engage in solidarity with one another in order to collectively respond to the current crisis. Under normal circumstances, individuals can engage in solidarity with their compatriots in the context of public health provision in a number of ways, including paying taxes which fund welfare state initiatives, and avoiding others when ill. While there has been significant engagement in solidarity worldwide, there have also been high profile examples of refusals and failures to engage in solidarity, both by individual agents, and governments. In this paper I examine the consequence of these failures with reference to the actions of the current British government, which has failed to deliver an effective response to the crisis. This failure has effectively devolved responsibility for responding to the crisis to people who are simultaneously more vulnerable to infection, and less able to do anything about it. I argue that such responses represent mismanagement of a public health crisis, and a rejection of important democratic and egalitarian norms and values.