". . . I've Gone Through This My Own Self, So I Practice What I Preach . . . "

Operationalising a real-time research ethics approach: supporting ethical mindfulness in agriculture-nutrition-health research in Malawi

BACKGROUND

There have been notable investments in large multi-partner research programmes across the agriculture-nutrition-health (ANH) nexus. These studies often involve human participants and commonly require research ethics review. These ANH studies are complex and can raise ethical issues that need pre-field work, ethical oversight and also need an embedded process that can identify, characterise and manage ethical issues as the research work develops, as such more embedded and dynamic ethics processes are needed. This work builds on notions of 'ethics in practice' by developing an approach to facilitate ethical reflection within large research programmes. This study explores the application of a novel 'real-time research ethics approach' (RTREA) and how this can support ethical mindfulness. This involves embedding ethical analysis and decision-making within research implementation, with a continuous dialogue between participants and researchers. The aim is to improve ethical responsiveness and participant experience, which in turn may ethically support adherence and retention. In this case study, a bioethics team (BT) was embedded in a community-based randomised, controlled trial conducted in rural Malawi, titled the 'Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy'. To identify ethical issues, the researchers conducted ten focus group discussions, fourteen in-depth interviews with key informants, two workshops, observed two sensitisation and three activity meetings conducted by the trial team, and analysed fifteen reports from pre-trial to trial implementation.

RESULTS

The RTREA facilitated the identification of social and ethical concerns and made researchers aware of participants' 'lived research experience'. To address concerns and experiences, the BT worked with researchers to facilitate conversation spaces where social and ethical issues were discussed. Conversation spaces were designed to create partnerships and promote participatory methods to capture trial participants' (TPs) perspectives and experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of RTREA showed the value of real-time and continuous engagement between TPs and researchers. These real-time processes could be embedded to complement traditional ethical guidance and expert opinions. A deeper engagement appeared to support greater operationalising of principles of inclusion, empowerment, and participant autonomy and supported researchers 'ethical mindfulness' which in turn may support instrumental outcomes of high recruitment, retention, and adherence levels.

Attitudes towards and experiences with economic incentives for engagement in HIV care and treatment: Qualitative insights from a randomized trial in Kenya

Growing literature has shown heterogenous effects of conditional cash incentives (CCIs) on HIV care retention. The field lacks insights into reasons why incentives impact various patients in different ways-differences that may be due to variations in psychological and social mechanisms of effect. A deeper understanding of patients' perceptions and experiences of CCIs for retention may help to clarify these mechanisms. We conducted a qualitative study embedded in the ADAPT-R trial (NCT#02338739), a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) that evaluated economic incentives to support retention in HIV care among persons living with HIV (PLHIV) initiating antiretroviral therapy in Kenya. Participants who attended their scheduled clinic visits received an incentive of approximately $4 each visit. Interviews were conducted between July 2016 and June 2017 with 39 participants to explore attitudes and experiences with economic incentives conditional on care engagement. Analyses revealed that incentives helped PLHIV prioritize care-seeking by alleviating transport barriers and food insecurity: "I decided to forgo [work] and attend clinic […] the voucher relieved me". Patients who borrowed money for care-seeking reported feeling relieved from the burden of indebtedness to others: "I borrow with confidence that I will pay after my appointment." Incentives fostered their autonomy, and enabled them to support others: "I used the money to buy some clothes and Pampers for the children." Participants who were intrinsically motivated to engage in care ("my life depends on the drugs, not the incentive"), and those who mistrusted researchers, reported being less prompted by the incentive itself. For patients not already prioritizing care-seeking, incentives facilitated care engagement through alleviating transport costs, indebtedness and food insecurity, and also supported social role fulfillment. Conditional cash incentives may be an important cue to action to improve progression through the HIV treatment cascade, and contribute to better care retention.

Community engagement and ethical global health research

Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical element of medical research, recommended by ethicists, required by research funders and advocated in ethics guidelines. The benefits of community engagement are often stressed in instrumental terms, particularly with regard to promoting recruitment and retention in studies. Less emphasis has been placed on the value of community engagement with regard to ethical good practice, with goals often implied rather than clearly articulated. This article outlines explicitly how community engagement can contribute to ethical global health research by complementing existing established requirements such as informed consent and independent ethics review. The overarching and interlinked areas are (1) respecting individuals, communities and stakeholders; (2) building trust and social relationships; (3) determining appropriate benefits; minimizing risks, burdens and exploitation; (4) supporting the consent process; (5) understanding vulnerabilities and researcher obligations; (6) gaining permissions, approvals and building legitimacy and (7) achieving recruitment and retention targets.

Forming and implementing community advisory boards in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Community advisory boards (CABs) have expanded beyond high-income countries (HICs) and play an increasing role in low- and middle-income country (LMIC) research. Much research has examined CABs in HICs, but less is known about CABs in LMICs. The purposes of this scoping review are to examine the creation and implementation of CABs in LMICs, including identifying frequently reported challenges, and to discuss implications for research ethics.

METHODS

We searched five databases (PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Scopus, and Google Scholar) for publications describing or evaluating CABs in LMICs. Two researchers independently reviewed articles for inclusion. Data related to the following aspects of CABs were extracted from included publications: time, country, financial support, research focus, responsibilities, and challenges. Thematic analyses were used to summarize textual data describing challenges.

RESULTS

Our search yielded 2005 citations, 83 of which were deemed eligible for inclusion. Most studies (65) were published between 2010 and 2017. Upper-middle-income countries were more likely to have studies describing CABs, with South Africa (17), China (8), and Thailand (7) having the greatest numbers. The United States National Institutes of Health was the main source of financial support for CABs. Many CABs (53/88, 60%) focused on HIV research. Thirty-four studies reported how CABs influenced the informed consent process for clinical trials or other aspects of research ethics. CAB responsibilities were related to clinical trials, including reviewing study protocols, educating local communities about research activities, and promoting the ethical conduct of research. Challenges faced by CABs included the following: incomplete ethical regulations and guidance; limited knowledge of science among members of communities and CABs; unstable and unbalanced power relationships between researchers and local communities; poor CAB management, including lack of formal participation structures and absence of CAB leadership; competing demands for time that limited participation in CAB activities; and language barriers between research staff and community members. Several challenges reflected shortcomings within the research team.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings examine the formation and implementation of CABs in LMICs and identify several ethical challenges. These findings suggest the need for further ethics training among CAB members and researchers in LMICs.

"Why Don't You Go Into Suburbs? Why Are You Targeting Us?": Trust and Mistrust in HIV Vaccine Trials in South Africa

Trust is a key element of high-quality stakeholder relations, which are themselves essential for the success of HIV vaccine trials. Where trust is absent, community stakeholders might not volunteer to become involved in key trial activities, and potential participants might not volunteer for enrollment. We explored site staff and Community Advisory Board (CAB) members’ experiences of trust/mistrust among community members and potential participants. We analyzed 10 focus group discussions with site staff and CAB members at two active South African HIV vaccine trial sites. We report on key characteristics perceived to contribute to the trustworthiness of communicators, as well as factors associated with mistrust. Attributes associated with trustworthy communicators included shared racial identity, competence, and independence (not being “captured”). Key foci for mistrust included explanations about site selection, stored samples, vaccination, and Vaccine Induced Sero-Positivity (VISP). Our findings suggest that community members’ trust is not necessarily global, in which trials are trusted or not; rather, it appears fairly nuanced and is impacted by various perceived attributes of communicators and the information they provide. We make recommendations for clinical trial site stakeholders invested in building trust and for future research into trust at these sites.

Stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials: a systematic review of the evidence

INTRODUCTION

Stakeholder engagement is an essential component of HIV clinical trials. We define stakeholder engagement as an input by individuals or groups with an interest in HIV clinical trials to inform the design or conduct of said trials. Despite its value, stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials has not been rigorously examined. The purpose of our systematic review is to examine stakeholder engagement for HIV clinical trials and compare it to the recommendations of the UNAIDS/AVAC Good Participatory Practice (GPP) guidelines.

METHODS

We used the PRISMA checklist and identified English language studies describing stakeholder engagement to inform HIV clinical trials. Four databases (PubMed, Ovid, CINAHL and Web of Science) and six journals were searched, with additional studies identified using handsearching and expert input. Two independent reviewers examined citations, abstracts and full texts. Data were extracted on country, engagement methods, stakeholder types and purpose of stakeholder engagement. Based on the GPP guidelines, we examined how frequently stakeholder engagement was conducted to inform clinical trial research question development, protocol development, recruitment, enrolment, follow-up, results and dissemination.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 917 citations identified, 108 studies were included in the analysis. Forty-eight studies (44.4%) described stakeholder engagement in high-income countries, thirty (27.8%) in middle-income countries and nine (8.3%) in low-income countries. Fourteen methods for stakeholder engagement were identified, including individual (e.g. interviews) and group (e.g. community advisory boards) strategies. Thirty-five types of stakeholders were engaged, with approximately half of the studies (60; 55.6%) engaging HIV-affected community stakeholders (e.g. people living with HIV, at-risk or related populations of interest). We observed greater frequency of stakeholder engagement to inform protocol development (49 studies; 45.4%) and trial recruitment (47 studies; 43.5%). Fewer studies described stakeholder engagement to inform post-trial processes related to trial results (3; 2.8%) and dissemination (11; 10.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings identify important directions for future stakeholder engagement research and suggestions for policy. Most notably, we found that stakeholder engagement was more frequently conducted to inform early stages of HIV clinical trials compared to later stages. In order to meet recommendations established in the GPP guidelines, greater stakeholder engagement across all clinical trial stages is needed.

Commentary on “A Framework for Community and Stakeholder Engagement: Experiences From a Multicenter Study in Southern Africa”

Community and stakeholder engagement (CSE) is increasingly acknowledged as foundational to global health research. This commentary builds on the multisite framework for CSE described in an eco-health study conducted in Southern Africa. We acknowledge the context-specific nature of some of the challenges for CSE and draw attention to significant issues and concerns that arose from our studies of CSE in the context of multisite HIV prevention trials in South Africa, India, and Canada: (a) Pretrial—historically based mistrust, identification of appropriate gatekeepers, and considering the breadth of community; (b) Trial implementation—impact of early trial cessations, appropriate community roles and responsibilities, and multifaceted stigma; and (c) Posttrial—supporting and sustaining CSE mechanisms independent of particular trials. Many of these challenges are exacerbated by widespread disparities in wealth and power between trial sponsors and participating communities, further supporting the central importance of sound CSE practices and infrastructures to advance ethical biomedical and public health research.

Caveats and pitfalls associated with researching community engagement in the context of HIV vaccine trials

HIV vaccine efficacy trials require the enrolment of large numbers of HIV-negative individuals and thus it is necessary to engage with communities where HIV incidence is high. We identify some of the caveats and pitfalls associated with researching community engagement in the context of HIV vaccine trials. These are as follows: the lack of consensus of what community engagement is and how it is practiced, the sometimes paradoxical role of community advisory boards as community representatives and challenges associated with information dissemination in communities. We identify a set of considerations for community engagement practitioners, trial investigators and social scientists when conducting community engagement.

New ethical considerations in vaccine trials

Known and novel pathogens continue to afflict the world's population, and we deploy existing and new vaccines - the best type of weapon we've got - against them. One consequence is that we are accumulating steadily more experience of both the scientific and the ethical requirements of conducting vaccine trials in people. Good science is itself an ethical requirement, as it is meaningless to apply ethical principles to a scientifically flawed product or plan. Bad science can only be bad ethics. And we have learned that ethical principles are a necessity when we apply the benefits of science to the improving of human health. Recent epidemics have provided opportunities to expand our understanding of this field and of the many components of it that we recognize to be necessary to the ethical assessment of vaccines.