Recognizing Risk and Vulnerability in Research Ethics: Imagining the "What Ifs?"

Research ethics in practice: An analysis of ethical issues encountered in qualitative health research with mental health service users and relatives

The ethics review of qualitative health research poses various challenges that are due to a mismatch between the current practice of ethics review and the nature of qualitative methodology. The process of obtaining ethics approval for a study by a research ethics committee before the start of a research study has been described as "procedural ethics" and the identification and handling of ethical issues by researchers during the research process as "ethics in practice." While some authors dispute and other authors defend the use of procedural ethics in relation to qualitative health research, there is general agreement that it needs to be supplemented with ethics in practice. This article aims to provide an illustration of research ethics in practice by reflecting on the ways in which we identified and addressed ethical and methodological issues that arose in the context of an interview study with mental health service users and relatives. We describe the challenges we faced and the solutions we found in relation to the potential vulnerability of research participants, the voluntariness of consent, the increase of participant access and the heterogeneity of the sample, the protection of privacy and internal confidentiality, and the consideration of personal and contextual factors.

IRBs and the Protection-Inclusion Dilemma: Finding a Balance

Institutional review boards, tasked with facilitating ethical research, are often pulled in competing directions. In what we call the protection-inclusion dilemma, we acknowledge the tensions IRBs face in aiming to both protect potential research participants from harm and include under-represented populations in research. In this manuscript, we examine the history of protectionism that has dominated research ethics oversight in the United States, as well as two responses to such protectionism: inclusion initiatives and critiques of the term vulnerability. We look at what we know about IRB decision-making in relation to protecting and including "vulnerable" groups in research and examine the lack of regulatory guidance related to this dilemma, which encourages protection over inclusion within IRB practice. Finally, we offer recommendations related to how IRBs might strike a better balance between inclusion and protection in research ethics oversight.

Attitudes and perceptions of next-of-kin/loved ones toward end-of-life HIV cure-related research: A qualitative focus group study in Southern California

As end-of-life (EOL) HIV cure-related research expands, understanding perspectives of participants’ next-of-kin (NOK) is critical to maintaining ethical study conduct. We conducted two small focus groups and two one-on-one interviews using focus group guides with the NOK of Last Gift study participants at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). Participating NOK included six individuals (n = 5 male and n = 1 female), including a grandmother, grandfather, partner, spouse, and two close friends. Researchers double-coded the transcripts manually for overarching themes and sub-themes using an inductive approach. We identified six key themes: 1) NOK had an accurate, positive understanding of the Last Gift clinical study; 2) NOK felt the study was conducted ethically; 3) Perceived benefits for NOK included support navigating the dying/grieving process and personal growth; 4) Perceived drawbacks included increased sadness, emotional stress, conflicted wishes between NOK and study participants, and concerns around potential invasiveness of study procedures at the EOL; 5) NOK expressed pride in loved ones’ altruism; and 6) NOK provided suggestions to improve the Last Gift study, including better communication between staff and themselves. These findings provide a framework for ethical implementation of future EOL HIV cure-related research involving NOK.

Habiliter l’ergothérapeute-chercheur à résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche

La recherche est une occupation propice à l’émergence d’enjeux éthiques, en outre parce qu’elle est liée à des conflits d’intérêts parfois difficiles à gérer et se réalise dans un contexte hautement compétitif qui valorise la performance. Alors que les enjeux éthiques de la pratique clinique de l’ergothérapie commencent à être documentés, les enjeux éthiques vécus par les chercheurs en ergothérapie et les moyens qu’ils utilisent pour gérer ces enjeux ne sont quasiment pas documentés. Cet article présente les résultats d’une étude qualitative qui a documenté les moyens (macro, méso et micro) qui sont proposés par des ergothérapeutes-chercheurs pour résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche. Onze ergothérapeutes (n=11) ont participé à la recherche et partagent les moyens qu’ils utilisent ou envisagent pour gérer les enjeux éthiques de la recherche qu’ils vivent comme chercheur. Les moyens proposés par les ergothérapeutes rejoignent plusieurs moyens suggérés dans les écrits, quoique certains moyens proposés dans les écrits relatifs à la relation à établir avec les participants de recherche soient peu abordés par les participants, ce qui est surprenant compte tenu des valeurs humanistes au fondement de la profession d’ergothérapeute. Au final, cet article qui présente une synthèse à la fois des moyens répertoriés dans des écrits pour résoudre les enjeux éthiques de la recherche et ceux discutés par les participants vise à habiliter l’ergothérapeute-chercheur à résoudre les enjeux que pose la recherche académique tout en restant fidèle aux valeurs de la profession.

Vulnerability in human research

The conduct of prior ethics review of human research projects helps to protect vulnerable groups or populations from potential negative impacts of research. Contemporary considerations in human research considers the concept of vulnerability in terms of access to research opportunities, impacts on the consenting process, selection bias, and the generalisability of results. Recent work questions the validity of using enumerated lists as a check box approach to protect research participants from exploitation. Through the use of broad categories to treat cohorts of human research participants as homogenous classes and label some participants as vulnerable merely because they are members of a particular class, some ethics reviewers have used the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research to strip individuals of their "ethical equality". Labelling people as vulnerable does not help researchers or human research ethics committee members develop an understanding of the complexities of applying the principles of respect and of justice in ethical decision-making. Conversely, defining specific cohorts of research participants as needing nuanced ethical consideration, due to their vulnerable nature, may imply that other population groups need not be considered vulnerable. We contend that this assumption is erroneous. This paper explores the way that human research ethics guidance documents treat vulnerability within the Australian context and draws on contemporary discussion to focus an alternative perspective based on the principles in the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research for researchers and human research ethics committee members to consider.

Recognizing the Role of Research Assistants in the Protection of Participants in Vulnerable Circumstances

Little is known about how research assistants (RAs) protect participants in vulnerable circumstances. Using a critical qualitative method informed by feminist ethics, we ran five focus groups with experienced RAs. We identified two themes: (a) expressing moral competencies (subthemes: recognizing power, privilege, and vulnerability; adapting processes and providing support; understanding the sources of moral competencies) and (b) negotiating and making transparent roles and responsibilities (subthemes: separating responsibilities as a clinician from those of an RA; critically reflecting on the shared responsibilities of principal investigators and RAs; and identifying the role of the Research Ethics Committee). Although RAs possess a variety of moral competencies and have an important role in protecting research participants in vulnerable circumstances, that role is largely unrecognized.

Establishing long-term research relationships with older people: exploring care practices in longitudinal studies

Drawing on a recently completed longitudinal research project with 96 participants aged 55+, the paper provides insight into the challenges of carrying out ethical practices when engaged in longer-term research relationships with older people. It builds on a body of work that purposely records in detail the ethical dilemmas researchers face, the options available to them and the rationale guiding their reaction. The Co-Motion research, led by the University of York, examined the impact of major later-life transitions on mobility and wellbeing, and was therefore focused on times of change that were, for some participants, accompanied by suffering. Over three years, the project used a range of methods to explore with each individual the dynamic nature of lived experience: change, continuity, endurance, transition and causality. The paper addresses the negotiation of informed consent over the life of long-term research relationships; the ‘care work’ involved; contested understandings of vulnerability; and the need for ongoing ethical reflection. The paper concludes by calling for greater reflexivity and suggests a more participant-focused approach to ethics in the field, demanding both greater self-awareness from researchers and allowing the participants to have greater voice in the research processes.