WHO guidance on ethics in outbreaks and the COVID-19 pandemic: a critical appraisal

The public's considerations about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions to manage a novel COVID-19 epidemic

In the future, new variants of the SARS-CoV-2 virus might emerge and cause outbreaks. If this occurs, the implementation of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) can be reconsidered. Consideration of the potential benefits and harms of implementing NPIs, and ultimately deciding about implementing NPIs, is currently mainly executed by experts and governments. However, general literature on public engagement suggests that integrating public perspectives into decision-making can enhance the quality of decisions and foster greater public understanding of them. In this study, a deliberative mini-public was conducted to integrate this public perspective. The aim was to elicit public considerations regarding non-pharmaceutical interventions by asking a diverse group of citizens to participate as decision-makers and convene, learn and deliberate about implementing non-pharmaceutical interventions during a hypothetical outbreak of a new SARS-CoV-2 variant. Participants emphasized the importance of early implementation during the outbreak, to prevent exceeding healthcare capacity, long-term mental health issues, educational deficits, and bankruptcies. Additionally, participants stressed taking public support into account, and shared ideas on maintaining support. Furthermore, participants wanted to give citizens personal responsibility and freedom in making their own assessment regarding adherence to interventions and how much risk of infection they would be willing to accept. Participants also expressed the need for the government to adopt a learning attitude towards improvements in pandemic response, and to generate more focus on long-term strategies. The deliberative mini-public, revealed public considerations that reflected public values and needs. These considerations might be helpful in better aligning epidemic management policies with public perspectives. Regarding the deliberative mini-public, uncertainties remain about the design and impact on a bigger scale.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

Five 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous, 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.