Reasoning "Uncharted Territory": Notions of Expertise Within Ethics Review Panels Assessing Research Use of Social Media

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users' views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues in qualitative research using social media data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of studies mining text from internet communities and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 to May 31, 2023. These studies, limited to the English language, were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues. We searched 5 databases, that is, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Embase. Gray literature was supplemented from Google Scholar and OpenGrey websites. Studies using qualitative methods mining text from the internet community focusing on health care topics were deemed eligible. Data extraction was performed using a standardized data extraction spreadsheet. Findings were reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

RESULTS

After 4674 titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, 108 studies on mining text from the internet community were included. Nearly half of the studies were published in the United States, with more studies from 2019 to 2022. Only 59.3% (64/108) of the studies sought ethical approval, 45.3% (49/108) mentioned informed consent, and only 12.9% (14/108) of the studies explicitly obtained informed consent. Approximately 86% (12/14) of the studies that reported informed consent obtained digital informed consent from participants/administrators, while 14% (2/14) did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 70.3% (76/108) of the studies contained users' written content or posts: 68% (52/76) contained verbatim quotes, while 32% (24/76) paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of the studies that paraphrased the quotes did not report the paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of the studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users' privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and between papers that contained users' written content (both direct and paraphrased quotes) and papers that did not contain users' written content (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review demonstrates that the reporting of ethical considerations is widely neglected in qualitative research studies using social media data; such studies should be more cautious in citing user quotes to maintain user privacy. Further, our review reveals the need for detailed information on the precautions of obtaining informed consent and paraphrasing to reduce the potential bias. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues is needed for qualitative research of health care using social media data of internet communities.

Ethical and legal considerations in social media research for health technology assessment: conclusions from a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

The objective was to identify and describe the published guidance and current academic discourse of ethical issues and standards related to the use of Social Media Research for generating patient insights for the use by health technology assessment (HTA) or health policy decisions.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature was conducted in PubMed and Embase and identified 935 potential references published between January 2017 and June 2021. After title and abstract screening by three reviewers, 40 publications were included, the relevant information was extracted and data were collected in a mind map, which was then used to structure the output of the review.

RESULTS

Social Media Research may reveal new insights of relevance to HTA or health policies into patient needs, patient experiences, or patient behaviors. However, the research approaches, methods, data use, interpretation, and communication may expose those who post the data in social media channels to risks and potential harms relating to privacy, anonymity/confidentiality, authenticity, context, and rapidly changing technologies.

CONCLUSIONS

An actively engaged approach to ensuring ethical innocuousness is recommended that carefully follows best practices throughout planning, conduct, and communication of the research. Throughout the process and as a follow-up, there should be a discourse with the ethical experts to maximally protect the current and future users of social media, to support their trust in the research, and to advance the knowledge in parallel to the advancement of the media themselves, the technologies, and the research tools.

Exploring perspectives of research ethics committee members on the governance of big data in sub-Saharan Africa

Interest in the governance of big data is growing exponentially. However, finding the right balance between making large volumes of data accessible, and safeguarding privacy, preventing data misuse, determining authorship and protecting intellectual property remain challenging. In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), research ethics committees (RECs) play an important role in reviewing data-intense research protocols. However, this regulatory role must be embedded in a context of robust governance. There is currently a paucity of published literature on how big data are regulated in SSA and if the capacity to review protocols is sufficient. The aim of this study was to provide a broad overview of REC members' awareness and perceptions of big data governance in SSA. A descriptive cross-sectional survey was conducted from April to July 2022. We invited 300 REC members to participate in our online survey via Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap). A total of 140 REC members, representing 34 SSA countries, completed the online survey. Awareness of data governance laws, policies and guidelines was variable across the subcontinent. A quarter of respondents (25%) indicated that national regulations on the trans-border flow of research data are inadequate. Institutional policies on research data protection were also regarded as being inadequate. Most respondents (64%) believed that they lacked experience in reviewing data-intense protocols. Data governance and regulation in SSA need to be strengthened at both national and institutional levels. There is a strong need for capacity development in the review of data-intense research protocols on the subcontinent.

Ethics governance in Scottish universities: how can we do better? A qualitative study

While ethical norms for conducting academic research in the United Kingdom are relatively clear, there is little empirical understanding of how university research ethics committees (RECs) themselves operate and whether they are seen to operate well. In this article, we offer insights from a project focused on the Scottish university context. We deployed a three-sided qualitative approach: (i) document analysis; (ii) interviews with REC members, administrators, and managers; and (iii) direct observation of REC meetings. We found that RECs have diverse operation and vary in terms of what members understand to be the remit of their REC and what should constitute the content of ethics review. Overall, though, most participants perceive university RECs as operating well. When asked what they consider to be areas for further improvement, most commented on: implementation of an online system; more experience with how to evaluate various kinds of research projects; best practice exchange and training opportunities; more accurate reflection of the REC role as part of the university’s workload allocation model; and greater recognition of the importance of research ethics governance in the university’s research environment, and, for the members themselves, their career advancement. Based on our findings and subsequent discussions during an end-of-project roundtable with stakeholders, we propose a model of collaboration that can address some of the identified areas that could benefit from further improvement. This model would facilitate a heightened awareness of the importance of supporting REC members in their own effort in assisting students and staff alike in undertaking as ethically robust research as possible.

Ethics review of big data research: What should stay and what should be reformed?

BACKGROUND

Ethics review is the process of assessing the ethics of research involving humans. The Ethics Review Committee (ERC) is the key oversight mechanism designated to ensure ethics review. Whether or not this governance mechanism is still fit for purpose in the data-driven research context remains a debated issue among research ethics experts.

MAIN TEXT

In this article, we seek to address this issue in a twofold manner. First, we review the strengths and weaknesses of ERCs in ensuring ethical oversight. Second, we map these strengths and weaknesses onto specific challenges raised by big data research. We distinguish two categories of potential weakness. The first category concerns persistent weaknesses, i.e., those which are not specific to big data research, but may be exacerbated by it. The second category concerns novel weaknesses, i.e., those which are created by and inherent to big data projects. Within this second category, we further distinguish between purview weaknesses related to the ERC's scope (e.g., how big data projects may evade ERC review) and functional weaknesses, related to the ERC's way of operating. Based on this analysis, we propose reforms aimed at improving the oversight capacity of ERCs in the era of big data science.

CONCLUSIONS

We believe the oversight mechanism could benefit from these reforms because they will help to overcome data-intensive research challenges and consequently benefit research at large.

"He's under oath": Privacy and Confidentiality Views Among People Who Inject Drugs Enrolled in a Study of Social Networks and Human Immunodeficiency Virus/Hepatitis C Virus Risk

Despite the promise of social network research, this method raises important ethical questions regarding privacy and confidentiality. Although researchers and bioethicists have considered research obligations in relation to marginal or vulnerable populations, the views of people who inject drugs (PWIDs) have not been sufficiently considered. To elicit participants' views of research obligations, we conducted in-depth interviews with a subset (n = 40) of active PWIDs enrolled in a large social network study. Findings suggest participants have an expectation of confidentiality but believe this obligation need not be absolute and can be waived if a participant violates community norms or place others at risk. Ethics boards should recognize that marginalized populations are able to articulate complex moral views about privacy and confidentiality. Engaging participants in dialogue about the responsible conduct of research presents an opportunity to correct under- or overestimations of research vulnerabilities when such decisions are restricted to the perspectives of investigators or Institutional Review Board members.

Points of contention: Qualitative research identifying where researchers and research ethics committees disagree about consent waivers for secondary research with tissue and data

Background

This is a multi-method, in-depth, three part qualitative study exploring the regulation and practice of secondary research with tissue and data in a high-income country. We explore and compare the perspectives of researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and other relevant professionals (e.g. pathologists and clinicians). We focus on points of contention because they demonstrate misalignment between the expectations, values and assumptions of these stakeholders.

Methods

This is a multi-method study using observational research, focus groups and interviews with 42 participants (conducted 2016–2017) and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Results are arranged under the following themes: consent; balancing the social value of the research with consent requirements; and harm. Our findings demonstrate different perspectives on the review process, styles of ethical reasoning and issues of concern. First, researchers and RECs disagreed about whether the cost of re-consenting patients satisfied the criterion of impracticability for consent waivers. Second, most researchers were skeptical that secondary research with already collected tissue and data could harm patients. Researchers often pointed to the harm arising from a failure to use existing material for research. RECs were concerned about the potential for secondary research to stigmatize communities. Third, researchers adopted a more consequentialist approach to decision-making, including some willingness to trade off the benefit of the research against the cost of getting consent; whereas RECs were more deontological and typically considered research benefit only after it had been established that re-consent was impractical.

Conclusion

This research highlights ways in which RECs and researchers may be talking past each other, resulting in confusion and frustration. These finding provide a platform for realignment of the expectations of RECs and researchers, which could contribute to making research ethics review more effective.

Working Through Ethics Review of Big Data Research Projects: An Investigation into the Experiences of Swiss and American Researchers

The employment of Big Data as an increasingly used research method has introduced novel challenges to ethical research practices and to ethics committees (ECs) globally. The aim of this study is to explore the experiences of scholars with ECs in the ethical evaluation of Big Data projects. Thirty-five interviews were performed with Swiss and American researchers involved in Big Data research in psychology and sociology. The interviews were analyzed using thematic coding. Our respondents reported lack of support from ECs, absence of appropriate expertise among members of the boards, and lack of harmonized evaluation criteria between committees. To implement ECs practices we argue for updating the expertise of board members and the institution of a consultancy model between researchers and ECs.

Defining ethical standards for the application of digital tools to population health research

There is growing interest in population health research, which uses methods based on artificial intelligence. Such research draws on a range of clinical and non-clinical data to make predictions about health risks, such as identifying epidemics and monitoring disease spread. Much of this research uses data from social media in the public domain or anonymous secondary health data and is therefore exempt from ethics committee scrutiny. While the ethical use and regulation of digital-based research has been discussed, little attention has been given to the ethics governance of such research in higher education institutions in the field of population health. Such governance is essential to how scholars make ethical decisions and provides assurance to the public that researchers are acting ethically. We propose a process of ethics governance for population health research in higher education institutions. The approach takes the form of review after the research has been completed, with particular focus on the role artificial intelligence algorithms play in augmenting decision-making. The first layer of review could be national, open-science repositories for open-source algorithms and affiliated data or information which are developed during research. The second layer would be a sector-specific validation of the research processes and algorithms by a committee of academics and stakeholders with a wide range of expertise across disciplines. The committee could be created as an off-shoot of an already functioning national oversight body or health technology assessment organization. We use case studies of good practice to explore how this process might operate.