Forms of benefit sharing in global health research undertaken in resource poor settings: a qualitative study of stakeholders' views in Kenya

Rethinking Benefit and Responsibility in the Context of Diversity: Perspectives from the Front Lines of Precision Medicine Research

INTRODUCTION

Federal agencies have instituted guidelines to prioritize the enrollment and retention of diverse participants in precision medicine research (PMR). Prior studies examining participation of minoritized communities have shown that potential benefits represent a key determinant. Human subject research guidance, however, conceptualizes potential benefits narrowly, emphasizing generalized advances in medical knowledge. Further, few studies have provided qualitative data that critically examine how the concept of "benefit" is interpreted or challenged in the context of research practice. This paper examines the experiences of PMR investigators and frontline research staff to understand how standard approaches to benefit are received, contested, and negotiated "on the ground."

METHODS

Findings are drawn from a qualitative project conducted across five US-based, federally funded PMR studies. Data collection included 125 in-depth interviews with a purposive sample of investigators, research staff, community advisory board members, and NIH program officers associated with these PMR studies.

RESULTS

Researchers report that the standard approach to benefit - which relies on the premise of altruism and the promise of incrementally advancing scientific knowledge - is frequently contested. Researchers experience moral distress over the unmet clinical, psychosocial, and material needs within the communities they are engaging. Many believe the broader research enterprise has a responsibility to better address these needs.

CONCLUSION

Researchers frequently take issue with and sometimes negotiate what is owed to participants and to their communities in exchange for the data they provide. These experiences of moral distress and these improvisations warrant systematic redress, not by individual researchers but by the broader research ethics infrastructure.

Structural Influences on Consent Decisions in Participatory Health Research in Eswatini

Recognition that structural factors influence participation decisions and have potential to coerce participation, emerged relatively recently in research ethics literature. Empirical evidence to elucidate the nature of "structural" coercion and influence is needed to optimise respect for autonomy through voluntary informed consent. We present findings from ethnographic data about community co-researchers' experiences designing and implementing demographic and health survey consent procedures in participatory health research in Eswatini. Informed by Bourdieu's sociological theory of multiple types of capital/power, our findings detail structural influences on research participation decisions, highlight the inherently power-laden dynamics of consent interactions, and suggest that to be optimally ethical, research ethics principles and practices should consider and account for structural power dynamics.

Extending the CARE Principles from tribal research policies to benefit sharing in genomic research

Indigenous Peoples have historically been targets of extractive research that has led to little to no benefit. In genomics, such research not only exposes communities to harms and risks of misuse, but also deprives such communities of potential benefits. Tribes in the US have been exercising their sovereignty to limit this extractive practice by adopting laws and policies to govern research on their territories and with their citizens. Federally and state recognized tribes are in the strongest position to assert research oversight. Other tribes lack the same authority, given that federal and state governments do not recognize their rights to regulate research, resulting in varying levels of oversight by tribes. These governance measures establish collective protections absent from the US federal government's research oversight infrastructure, while setting expectations regarding benefits to tribes as political collectives. Using a legal epidemiology approach, the paper discusses findings from a review of Tribal research legislation, policy, and administrative materials from 26 tribes in the US. The discussion specifies issues viewed by tribes as facilitators and barriers to securing benefits from research for their nations and members/citizens, and describes preemptive and mitigating strategies pursued by tribes in response. These strategies are set within the framing of the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance (Collective Benefit, Authority to Control, Responsibility, Ethics), a set of standards developed to ensure that decisions made about data pertaining to Indigenous communities at the individual and tribal levels are responsive to their values and collective interests. Our findings illustrate gaps to address for benefit sharing and a need to strengthen Responsibility and Ethics in tribal research governance.

Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective

This article draws on reflections about humanness, friendliness and partiality, in the writings of Afro-communitarians to develop principles for thinking critically about why benefit sharing, what may count as benefits within the context of human research in Africa and the limits of the obligation of benefit sharing. Suppose the thinking about humanness, friendliness, and partiality in Afro-communitarianism were the foundation of human genetic research in Africa, then, individuals who have contributed to research or borne its burden would benefit from its rewards. This is even more important if participants have pressing needs that researchers and/or research institutions can help ease. A failure to aid sample contributors and data providers in need when researchers and research institutions can—as well as an indifference to the serious needs of contributors—are failures to exhibit friendliness in the relevant ways. Finally, though providing benefits to contributors can be an important way of showing humanity to them, nonetheless, this obligation is not absolute and may be limited by the stronger obligation of shared experience—to advance science. Studies are still required to inquire how well these norms will work in practice and inform regulatory and legal frameworks.

'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research

Background: Community engagement (CE) is increasingly accepted as a critical aspect of health research, because of its potential to make research more ethical, relevant and well implemented. While CE activities linked to health research have proliferated in Low and Middle Income Countries (LMICs), and are increasingly described in published literature, there is a lack of conceptual clarity around how engagement is understood to 'work', and the aims and purposes of engagement are varied and often not made explicit. Ultimately, the evidence base for engagement remains underdeveloped. Methods: To develop explanations for how and why CE with health research contributes to the pattern of outcomes observed in published literature , we conducted a realist review of CE with malaria research - a theory driven approach to evidence synthesis. Results: We found that community engagement relies on the development of provisional 'working relationships' across differences, primarily of wealth, power and culture. These relationships are rooted in interactions that are experienced as relatively responsive and respectful, and that bring tangible research related benefits. Contextual factors affecting development of working relationships include the facilitating influence of research organisation commitment to and resources for engagement, and constraining factors linked to the prevailing 'dominant health research paradigm context', such as: differences of wealth and power between research centres and local populations and health systems; histories of colonialism and vertical health interventions; and external funding and control of health research. Conclusions: The development of working relationships contributes to greater acceptance and participation in research by local stakeholders, who are particularly interested in research related access to health care and other benefits. At the same time, such relationships may involve an accommodation of some ethically problematic characteristics of the dominant health research paradigm, and thereby reproduce this paradigm rather than challenge it with a different logic of collaborative partnership.

Benefit Sharing for Human Genomics Research: Awareness and Expectations of Genomics Researchers in Sub-Saharan Africa

Benefit sharing is an ethical issue that underscores the need to find a balance between access to genetic resources and the provision of fair benefits in exchange for access. The Human Genome Organisation (HUGO) is one of the few initiatives to have engaged with the topic of benefit sharing in human genomics. However, there is a lack of clarity on what benefit sharing entails in human genomics research and how it could be implemented in practice. This paper reports on a qualitative study that explored the views and expectations of benefit sharing by a group of genomics researchers in sub-Saharan Africa. Overall, while there was little awareness of benefit sharing among the researchers, there was support for benefit sharing in human genetics, and this was based on principles of fairness, solidarity, and reciprocity. This in-depth explorative study demonstrates the need for genomics research consortia in Africa to have open discussions on benefit sharing and to develop ethics frameworks for benefit sharing in population genomics studies in Africa. HUGO's statement on benefit sharing and the Nagoya Protocol could provide guidance.

A scoping review of considerations and practices for benefit sharing in biobanking

BACKGROUND

Despite the rapid global growth of biobanking over the last few decades, and their potential for the advancement of health research, considerations specific to the sharing of benefits that accrue from biobanks have received little attention. Questions such as the types and range of benefits that can arise in biobanking, who should be entitled to those benefits, when they should be provided, by whom and in what form remain mostly unanswered. We conducted a scoping review to describe benefit sharing considerations and practices in biobanking in order to inform current and future policy and practice.

METHODS

Drawing on the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we conducted a scoping review of the literature in three online databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, and Google Scholar). We extracted and charted data to capture general characteristics, definitions and examples of benefits and benefit sharing, justification for benefit sharing, challenges in benefit sharing, governance mechanisms as well as proposed benefit sharing mechanisms.

RESULTS

29 articles published between 1999 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria for the study. The articles included 5 empirical and 24 non-empirical studies. Only 12 articles discussed benefit sharing as a stand-alone subject, while the remaining 17 integrated a discussion of benefits as one issue amongst others. Major benefit sharing challenges in biobanking were found to be those associated with uncertainties around the future use of samples and in resultant benefits.

CONCLUSION

Most of the benefit sharing definitions and approaches currently in use for biobanking are similar to those used in health research. These approaches may not recognise the distinct features of biobanking, specifically relating to uncertainties associated with the sharing and re-use of samples. We therefore support approaches that allow decisions about benefit sharing to be made progressively once it is apparent who samples are to be shared with, the intended purpose and expected benefits. We also highlight gaps in key areas informing benefit sharing in biobanking and draw attention to the need for further empirical research.

Public perceptions on Controlled Human Infection Model (CHIM) studies-a qualitative pilot study from South India

Research using Controlled Human Infection Models is yet to be attempted in India. This study was conducted to understand the perceptions of the lay public and key opinion makers prior to the possible introduction of such studies in the country. 110 respondents from urban and rural Bangalore district were interviewed using qualitative research methods of Focus Group Discussions and In-depth Interviews. The data was analyzed using grounded theory. Safety was a key concern of the lay public, expressed in terms of fear of death. The notion of infecting a healthy volunteer, the possibility of continued effects beyond the study duration and the likelihood of vulnerable populations volunteering solely for monetary benefit, were ethical concerns. Public good outcomes such as effective treatments, targeted vaccines and prevention of diseases was necessary justification for such studies. However, the comprehension of this benefit was not clear among non-medical, non-technical respondents and suggestions to seek alternatives to CHIMs repeatedly arose. There was a great deal of deflection-with each constituency feeling that people other than themselves may be ideally suited as participants. Risk takers, those without dependents, the more health and research literate, financially sound and those with an altruistic bent of mind emerged as possible CHIM volunteers. While widespread awareness and advocacy about CHIM is essential, listening to plural voices is the first step in public engagement in ethically contentious areas. Continued engagement and inclusive deliberative processes are required to redeem the mistrust of the public in research and rebuild faith in regulatory systems.

What do we know about ancillary care practices in East and Southern Africa? A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Background: Despite growing calls for the provision of ancillary care to study participants during medical research, there remains a noticeable gap in ethical guidelines for medical researchers in resource-constrained settings (RCS). We reviewed recent studies to determine the extent to which ancillary care is provided in East and Southern Africa and to examine the ethical justifications researchers provide to support their views on ancillary care obligations. Methods: A systematic search for qualitative and mixed methods studies on ancillary care was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, African Wide Information, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Department of Bioethics and H3 Africa websites and Google Scholar were further searched. Studies conducted in East and Southern Africa between 2004 and 2020, as well as those that reported on ancillary care provided to study participants were included. All studies included in this review were evaluated for methodological quality as well as bias risk. NVivo version 12 was used for thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 4,710 articles were identified by the initial search. After the data extraction and quality assessment, 24 articles were included. Key areas presented include ancillary care approaches and the themes of researcher motivation for providing ancillary care and expectations of participants in medical research. The review shows that while some international researchers do provide ancillary care to their study participants, approaches are not standardised without consistent guidelines for ethical practice for ancillary care. We found limited empirical studies in RCS that report on ancillary care, hence findings in this review are based on single studies rather than a collection of multiple studies. Conclusions: This paper emphasizes the value of establishing ethics guidelines for medical researchers in RCS who consider provision of ancillary care to their participants, and the need to account for these ethical guidelines in medical research.

Participant compensation in global health research: a case study

Background

Compensation for research participants can be provided for reasons including reimbursement of costs; compensation for time lost, discomfort or inconvenience; or expression of appreciation for participation. This compensation involves numerous ethical complexities, at times entailing competing risks. In the context of transnational research, often incorporating contexts of economic inequality, power differentials and post-colonialism, these issues extend into wider questions of ethical research conduct.

Methods

We describe experiences of conducting a community-based study of air pollution in southern Malawi incorporating ethnographic, participatory and air quality monitoring elements. Decisions surrounding participant compensation evolved in response to changing circumstances in the field.

Results

Attention to careful researcher–participant relationships and responsiveness to community perspectives allowed dynamic, contextualised decision-making around participant compensation. Despite widely cited risks, including but not restricted to undue influence of monetary compensation on participation, we learned that failure to adequately recognise and compensate participants has its own risks, notably the possibility of ‘ethics dumping’.

Conclusions

We recommend active engagement with research participants and communities with integration of contextual insights throughout, including participant compensation, as for all elements of research conduct. Equitable research relationships encompass four central values: fairness, care, honesty and respect.

Ethics in Research: Relevance for Nephrology

Research is crucial to progress in nephrology. It is important that studies are conducted rigorously from the scientific perspective, as well as in adherence to ethical standards. Traditional clinical research places a high value on individual research subject autonomy. Research questions often include the clinical effectiveness of new interventions studied under highly controlled conditions. Such research has brought the promise of new game-changers in nephrology, such as the sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors. Implementation research takes such knowledge further and investigates how to translate it into broader-scale policy and practice, to achieve swift and global uptake, with a focus on justice and equity. Newer challenges arising globally in research ethics include those relating to oversight of innovation, biobanking and big data, human-challenge studies, and research during emergencies. This article details the history of clinical research ethics and the role of research ethics committees, describes the evolving spectrum of biomedical research in human medicine, and presents emerging clinical research ethics issues using illustrative examples and a hypothetical case study. It is imperative that researchers and research ethics committees are well versed in the ethical principles of all forms of human research such that research is conducted to the highest standards and that effective interventions can be implemented at scale as rapidly as possible.

Providing a policy framework for responsible gene drive research: an analysis of the existing governance landscape and priority areas for further research

The progress in gene drive research has made the possibility of a future release in the environment probable. This prospect is raising new questions related to the adequacy of the policy frameworks in place to manage and regulate the research and its outcomes responsibly. A number of international mechanisms are exploring how to evaluate this technology. Amongst them, the Convention of Biological Diversity and the Cartagena Protocol, the review mechanisms of the World Health Organisation, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature are offering international fora for dialogue, while regional entities, such as the African Union, are developing specific frameworks to build their preparedness for oversight of gene drive organisms. In this manuscript, we review the existing regulatory landscape around gene drive research and map areas of convergence and divergence, as well as gaps in relation to guidelines for community engagement in gene drive research.

Indian Council of Medical Research's National Ethical Guidelines for biomedical and health research involving human participants: The way forward from 2006 to 2017

The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) recently published the third revised guidelines "National Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical and Health-Related Research Involving Human Participants" in 2017. The changes to the guidelines were needed to acculturate the rapid advances in the research environment and advances in science and technology. The revised guidelines propose substantial changes/ modifications compared to the previous version. These include the introduction of broad consent, ethical issues related to deception, review of multi-centric research by a single ethics committee and ethical issues involved in implementation research and other issues related to public health research. The revised guidelines also incorporate modifications and minor changes to the previous version. Although most of the changes in the revised guidelines are in parallel to most of the international guidelines, we have also highlighted the minor differences compared to other international guidelines.

Multiple-level stakeholder engagement in malaria clinical trials: addressing the challenges of conducting clinical research in resource-limited settings

Background

Multinational clinical trials are logistically complex and require close coordination between various stakeholders. They must comply with global clinical standards and are accountable to multiple regulatory and ethical bodies. In resource-limited settings, it is challenging to understand how to apply global clinical standards to international, national, and local factors in clinical trials, making multiple-level stakeholder engagement an important element in the successful conduct of these clinical trials.

Main body

During the planning and implementation of a large multinational clinical trial for intermittent preventive treatment of malaria in pregnancy in resource-limited areas of sub-Saharan Africa, we encountered numerous challenges, which required implementation of a range of engagement measures to ensure compliance with global clinical and regulatory standards. These challenges included coordination with ongoing global malaria efforts, heterogeneity in national regulatory structures, sub-optimal healthcare infrastructure, local practices and beliefs, and perspectives that view healthcare providers with undue trust or suspicion.

In addition to engagement with international bodies, such as the World Health Organization, the Malaria in Pregnancy Consortium, the Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics, and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in order to address the challenges just described, Pfizer Inc. and Medicines for Malaria Venture (the “Sponsoring Entities” for these studies) and investigators liaised with national- and district-level stakeholders such as health ministers and regional/local community health workers. Community engagement measures undertaken by investigators included local meetings with community leaders to explain the research aims and answer questions and concerns voiced by the community. The investigators also engaged with family members of prospective trial participants in order to be sensitive to local practices and beliefs.

Conclusion

Engagement with key stakeholders at international and national levels enabled the Sponsoring Entities to address challenges by aligning the study design with the requirements of health and regulatory agencies and to understand and address healthcare infrastructure needs prior to trial initiation. Local stakeholder engagement, including community members, study participants, and family enabled the investigators to address challenges by ensuring that study design and conduct were adapted to local considerations and ensuring accurate information about the study aims was shared with the public.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT01103063. Registered on 7 April 2010.

Ethical Gifts?: An Analysis of Soap-for-data Transactions in Malawian Survey Research Worlds

In 2008, thousands of Malawians received soap from an American research project as a gift for survey participation. Soap was deemed an ethical, non-coercive gift by researchers and ethics boards, but took on meanings that expressed recipients' grievances and aspirations. Research participants reframed soap and research benefits as "rights" they are entitled to, wages for "work," and a symbol of exploitation. Enlisting the perspectives of Malawi's ethics board, demographers, Malawian fieldworkers, and research participants, I describe how soap is spoken about and operates in research worlds. I suggest that neither a prescriptive nor a situated frame for ethics-with their investments in standardization and attention to context, respectively-provides answers about how to compensate Malawian research participants. The conclusion gestures toward a reparative framework for thinking ethics that is responsive not just to project-based parameters but also to the histories and political economy in which projects (and ethics) are situated.

Defining and Negotiating the Social Value of Research in Public Health Facilities: Perceptions of Stakeholders in a Research-Active Province of South Africa

This article reports on qualitative research conducted in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, among researchers and gate-keepers of health facilities in the province. Results suggest disparate but not irreconcilable perceptions of the social value of research in provincial health facilities. This study found that researchers tended to emphasize the contribution of research to the generation of knowledge and to the health of future patients while gate-keepers of health facilities tended to emphasize its contribution to the healthcare system and to current patients. Furthermore, relations between research stakeholders were perceived to be somewhat fragile, making it difficult for stakeholders to achieve consensus about the social value of research, as well as on ways to maximize value. Interventions to negotiate a shared perspective on the social value of research would appear to be warranted, and the findings of this study suggest some focus areas for such intervention.

Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Implementation research (IR) is growing in recognition as an important generator of practical knowledge that can be translated into health policy. With its aim to answer questions about how to improve access to interventions that have been shown to work but have not reached many of the people who could benefit from them, IR involves a range of particular ethical considerations that have not yet been comprehensively covered in international guidelines on health research ethics. The fundamental ethical principles governing clinical research apply equally in IR, but the application of these principles may differ depending on the IR question, context, and the nature of the proposed intervention. IR questions cover a broad range of topics that focus on improving health system functioning and improving equitable and just access to effective health care interventions. As such, IR designs are flexible and often innovative, and ethical principles cannot simply be extrapolated from their applications in clinical research. Meaningful engagement with all stakeholders including communities and research participants is a fundamental ethical requirement that cuts across all study phases of IR and links most ethical concerns. Careful modification of the informed consent process may be required in IR to permit study of a needed intervention. The risks associated with IR may be difficult to anticipate and may be very context-specific. The benefits of IR may not accrue to the same groups who participate in the research, therefore justifying the risks versus benefits of IR may be ethically challenging. The expectation that knowledge generated through IR should be rapidly translated into health policy and practice necessitates up-front commitments from decision-makers to sustainability and scalability of effective interventions. Greater awareness of the particular ethical implications of the features of IR is urgently needed to facilitate optimal ethical conduct of IR and uniform ethical review.

Public/community engagement in health research with men who have sex with men in sub-Saharan Africa: challenges and opportunities

Background

Community engagement, incorporating elements of the broader concepts of public and stakeholder engagement, is increasingly promoted globally, including for health research conducted in developing countries. In sub-Saharan Africa, community engagement needs and challenges are arguably intensified for studies involving gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men, where male same-sex sexual interactions are often highly stigmatised and even illegal. This paper contextualises, describes and interprets the discussions and outcomes of an international meeting held at the Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust in Kilifi, Kenya, in November 2013, to critically examine the experiences with community engagement for studies involving men who have sex with men.

Discussion

We discuss the ethically charged nature of the language used for men who have sex with men, and of working with ‘representatives’ of these communities, as well as the complementarity and tensions between a broadly public health approach to community engagement, and a more rights based approach. We highlight the importance of researchers carefully considering which communities to engage with, and the goals, activities, and indicators of success and potential challenges for each. We suggest that, given the unintended harms that can emerge from community engagement (including through labelling, breaches in confidentiality, increased visibility and stigma, and threats to safety), representatives of same-sex populations should be consulted from the earliest possible stage, and that engagement activities should be continuously revised in response to unfolding realities. Engagement should also include less vocal and visible men who have sex with men, and members of other communities with influence on the research, and on research participants and their families and friends. Broader ethics support, advice and research into studies involving men who have sex with men is needed to ensure that ethical challenges – including but not limited to those related to community engagement – are identified and addressed.

Summary

Underlying challenges and dilemmas linked to stigma and discrimination of men who have sex with men in Africa raise special responsibilities for researchers. Community engagement is an important way of identifying responses to these challenges and responsibilities but itself presents important ethical challenges.

Navigating the ethics of cross-cultural health promotion research

Health promotion researchers must consider the ethics of their research, and are usually required to abide by a set of ethical requirements stipulated by governing bodies (such as the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council) and human research ethics committees (HRECs). These requirements address both deontological (rule-based) and consequence-based issues. However, at times there can be a disconnect between the requirements of deontological issues and the cultural sensitivity required when research is set in cultural contexts and settings etic to the HREC. This poses a challenge for health promotion researchers who must negotiate between meeting both the requirements of the HREC and the needs of the community with whom the research is being conducted. Drawing on two case studies, this paper discusses examples from cross-cultural health promotion research in Australian and international settings where disconnect arose and negotiation was required to appropriately meet the needs of all parties. The examples relate to issues of participant recruitment and informed consent, participants under the Australian legal age of consent, participant withdrawal when this seemingly occurs in an ad hoc rather than a formal manner and reciprocity. Although these approaches are context specific, they highlight issues for consideration to advance more culturally appropriate practice in research ethics and suggest ways a stronger anthropological lens can be applied to research ethics to overcome these challenges.

Stakeholder Views of Clinical Trials in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Clinical trials are necessary to improve the health care of children, but only one-quarter are conducted in the low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) in which 98% of the global burden of disease resides.

OBJECTIVE

To describe stakeholder beliefs and experiences of conducting trials in children in LMICs.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases were searched to August 2014.

STUDY SELECTION

Qualitative studies of stakeholder perspectives on conducting clinical trials among children in LMICs.

DATA EXTRACTION

Findingswere analyzed by using thematic synthesis.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine studies involving 3110 participants (children [n = 290], parents or caregivers [n = 1609], community representatives [n = 621], clinical or research team members [n = 376], regulators [n = 18], or sponsors [n = 15]) across 22 countries were included. Five themes were identified: centrality of community engagement (mobilizing community, representatives' pivotal role, managing expectations, and retaining involvement); cognizance of vulnerability and poverty (therapeutic opportunity and medical mistrust); contending with power differentials (exploitation, stigmatization, and disempowerment); translating research to local context (cultural beliefs, impoverishment constraints, and ethical pluralism); and advocating fair distribution of benefits (health care, sponsor obligation, and collateral community benefits).

LIMITATIONS

Studies not published in English were excluded.

CONCLUSIONS

Conducting trials in children in LMICs is complex due to social disadvantage, economic scarcity, idiosyncratic cultural beliefs, and historical disempowerment, all of which contribute to inequity, mistrust, and fears of exploitation. Effective community engagement in recruiting, building research capacities, and designing trials that are pragmatic, ethical, and relevant to the health care needs of children in LMICs may help to improve the equity and health outcomes of this vulnerable population.

Enhancing quality and integrity in biomedical research in Africa: an international call for greater focus, investment and standardisation in capacity strengthening for frontline staff

The integrity of biomedical research depends heavily on the quality of research data collected. In turn, data quality depends on processes of data collection, a task undertaken by frontline research staff in many research programmes in Africa and elsewhere. These frontline research staff often have additional responsibilities including translating and communicating research in local languages, seeking informed consent for study participation and maintaining supportive relationships between research institutions and study participants and wider communities. The level of skills that fieldworkers need to undertake these responsibilities clearly affects the quality of data collected, the ethics of research ‘on the ground’ and the short and long term acceptability of research.

We organised an international workshop in Kenya in July 2014 to discuss the role of frontline staff in scientific research. A total of 25 field managers from 9 African countries and the UK met for 2.5 days to discuss the relationship between data quality and institutional performance management systems and how they affect career progression and supportive supervision policies of research frontline staff.

From this workshop, and supporting an expanding literature on the role of fieldworkers in international health research, participants agreed that fieldworkers’ roles present them with practical and ethical challenges that their routine training does not adequately prepare them for. We argue that the common and complex challenges facing fieldworkers should in part be addressed through increased investment and collaborative agreements across types of research institutions in Africa. We call for standardization of core elements of training for this critically important cadre of research staff who perform similar roles and encounter similar challenges in many African settings. Although many valuable training elements are offered in institutions, there is a need to develop broader, more grounded and innovative strategies to address complex realities for fieldworkers, and support the integrity and ethics of health research in these settings.

Training surgical residents for a career in academic global surgery: a novel training model

Academic global surgery is a nascent field focused on improving surgical care in resource-poor settings through a broad-based scholarship agenda. Although there is increasing momentum to expand training opportunities in low-resource settings among academic surgical programs, most focus solely on establishing short-term elective rotations rather than fostering research or career development. Given the complex nature of surgical care delivery and programmatic capacity building in the resource-poor settings, many challenges remain before global surgery is accepted as an academic discipline and an established career path. Brigham and Women's Hospital has established a specialized global surgery track within the general surgery residency program to develop academic leaders in this growing area of need and opportunity. Here we describe our experience with the design and development of the program followed by practical applications and lessons learned from our early experiences.

Risks and benefits of trial participation: A qualitative study of participants’ perspectives in Russia

Background:

The Russian Federation is one of the emerging clinical trial regions where the numbers of international clinical trials have been significantly rising over the course of recent years.

Purpose:

Our aims were to describe and explain risk–benefit calculus by clinical trial participants in Russia and to analyse the significance of the results for the ethical regulation of globalizing clinical trials.

Methods:

In-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 individuals participating in trials for cardiovascular disease. Analysis was based on the inductive constant comparative method.

Results:

Interviewed participants perceived multiple benefits in trial enrolment including regular check-ups, provision and explanation of individual test results, the opportunity to ask investigators for advice and the provision of treatment recommendations for those with limited access to a physician outside of the trial. Participants tried to manage risks of trial enrolment by paying attention to how they felt and reporting changes to investigators. Regular monitoring, the opportunity to drop out of the trial and health insurance provision in case of adverse events were viewed as further minimizing individual risks. Importantly, interviewed trial participants did not assess the risks and benefits of a single trial independently of wider social situation or particularities of their own health condition. Value of trial enrolment benefits for participants was enhanced by the healthcare system that was viewed as being unresponsive to the needs of people with cardiovascular disease. Therefore, in their risk–benefit assessment, participants weighed enrolment risks against the risks of dealing with their fragile health without continuous contact with a medical professional.

Limitations:

A relatively small number of interviews was conducted, only participants of cardiovascular disease trials were interviewed and the extent to which the described perspectives are generalizable is not established.

Conclusion:

The risk–benefit assessment as performed by most interviewed trial participants involved multiple components, including the ones unrelated to the trial itself, and was largely context-dependent. Perspectives of research participants can enrich frameworks for the evaluation of trial risks and benefits.

Benefits in cash or in kind? A community consultation on types of benefits in health research on the Kenyan Coast

Background

Providing benefits and payments to participants in health research, either in cash or in kind, is a common but ethically controversial practice. While much literature has concentrated on appropriate levels of benefits or payments, this paper focuses on less well explored ethical issues around the nature of study benefits, drawing on views of community members living close to an international health research centre in Kenya.

Methods

The consultation, including 90 residents purposively chosen to reflect diversity, used a two-stage deliberative process. Five half-day workshops were each followed by between two and four small group discussions, within a two week period (total 16 groups). During workshops and small groups, facilitators used participatory methods to share information, and promote reflection and debate on ethical issues around types of benefits, including cash, goods, medical and community benefits. Data from workshop and field notes, and voice recordings of small group discussions, were managed using Nvivo 10 and analysed using a Framework Analysis approach.

Findings and Conclusions

The methods generated in-depth discussion with high levels of engagement. Particularly for the most-poor, under-compensation of time in research carries risks of serious harm. Cash payments may best support compensation of costs experienced; while highly valued, goods and medical benefits may be more appropriate as an ‘appreciation’ or incentive for participation. Community benefits were seen as important in supporting but not replacing individual-level benefits, and in building trust in researcher-community relations. Cash payments were seen to have higher risks of undue inducement, commercialising relationships and generating family conflicts than other benefits, particularly where payments are high. Researchers should consider and account for burdens families may experience when children are involved in research. Careful context-specific research planning and skilled and consistent communication about study benefits and payments are important, including in mitigating potential negative effects.

Ethical considerations of physician career involvement in global health work: a framework

Examining the ethics of long-term, career involvement by physicians in global health work is vital, given growing professional interest and potential health implications for communities abroad. However, current literature remains heavily focused on ethical considerations of short-term global health training experiences. A literature review informed our development of an ethics framework centered on two perspectives: the practitioner perspective, further subdivided into extrinsic and intrinsic factors, and community perspectives, specifically that of the host community and the physician's home community. Some physician factors included cultural/linguistic differences, power imbalances, and sustainable skills/competencies. Receiving community factors included resource limitations, standard of care disparities, and community autonomy. Home community factors focused on the opportunity cost of an unavailable physician who was trained and supported by the local community. Descriptive review permitted comparison with existing short-term literature, noting similarities and differences. Our framework provides a basis for further research and critical analysis of ethical implications of career-long physician global health work.

"When they see us, it's like they have seen the benefits!": experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan Coast

BACKGROUND

Benefit sharing in health research has been the focus of international debates for many years, particularly in developing countries. Whilst increasing attention is being given to frameworks that can guide researchers to determine levels of benefits to participants, there is little empirical research from developing countries on the practical application of these frameworks, including in situations of extreme poverty and vulnerability. In addition, the voices of those who often negotiate and face issues related to benefits in practice - frontline researchers and fieldworkers (FWs) - are rarely included in these debates. Against this background, this paper reports on experiences of negotiating research participation and benefits as described by fieldworkers, research participants and researchers in two community based studies.

METHODS

The findings reported here are from a broader social science study that explored the nature of interactions between fieldworkers and participants in two community based studies on the Kenyan Coast. Between January and July 2010, data were collected using participant observation, and through group discussions and in-depth interviews with 42 fieldworkers, 4 researchers, and 40 study participants.

RESULTS

Participants highly appreciated the benefits provided by studies, particularly health care benefits. Fieldworkers were seen by participants and other community members as the gatekeepers and conduits of benefits, even though those were not their formal roles. Fieldworkers found it challenging to ignore participant and community requests for more benefits, especially in situations of extreme poverty. However, responding to requests by providing different sorts and levels of benefits over time, as inadvertently happened in one study, raised expectations of further benefits and led to continuous negotiations between fieldworkers and participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Fieldworkers play an important intermediary role in research; a role imbued with multiple challenges and ethical dilemmas for which they require appropriate support. Further more specific empirical research is needed to inform the development of guidance for researchers on benefit sharing, and on responding to emergency humanitarian needs for this and other similar settings.

Research ethics in global mental health: advancing culturally responsive mental health research

Global mental health research is needed to inform effective and efficient services and policy interventions within and between countries. Ethical reflection should accompany all GMHR and human resource capacity endeavors to ensure high standards of respect for participants and communities and to raise public debate leading to changes in policies and regulations. The views and circumstances of ethno-cultural and disadvantaged communities in the Majority and Minority world need to be considered to enhance scientific merit, public awareness, and social justice. The same applies to people with vulnerabilities yet who are simultaneously capable, such as children and youth. The ethical principles of respect for persons or autonomy, beneficence/non-maleficence, justice, and relationality require careful contextualization for research involving human beings. Building on the work of Fisher and colleagues (2002), this article highlights some strategies to stimulate the ethical conduct of global mental health research and to guide decision-making for culturally responsible research, such as developing culturally sensitive informed consent and disclosure policies and procedures; paying special attention to socioeconomic, cultural, and environmental risks and benefits; and ensuring meaningful community and individual participation. Research and capacity-building partnerships, political will, and access to resources are needed to stimulate global mental health research and consolidate ethical practice.

Benefit sharing: an exploration on the contextual discourse of a changing concept

Background

The concept of benefit sharing has been a topical issue on the international stage for more than two decades, gaining prominence in international law, research ethics and political philosophy. In spite of this prominence, the concept of benefit sharing is not devoid of controversies related to its definition and justification. This article examines the discourses and justifications of benefit sharing concept.

Discussion

We examine the discourse on benefit sharing within three main spheres; namely: common heritage of humankind, access and use of genetic resources according to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), and international clinical research. Benefit sharing has change from a concept that is enshrined in a legally binding regulation in the contexts of common heritage of humankind and CBD to a non-binding regulation in international clinical research. Nonetheless, there are more ethical justifications that accentuate benefit sharing in international clinical research than in the contexts of common heritage of humankind and the CBD.

Summary

There is a need to develop a legal framework in order to strengthen the advocacy and decisiveness of benefit sharing practice in international health research. Based on this legal framework, research sponsors would be required to provide a minimum set of possible benefits to participants and communities in research. Such legal framework on benefit sharing will encourage research collaboration with local communities; and dispel mistrust between research sponsors and host communities. However, more research is needed—drawing from other international legal frameworks, to understand how such a legal framework on benefit sharing can be successfully formulated in international health research.

‘… in the project they really care for us’: Meaning and experiences of participating in a clinical study of first-line treatment for malaria and HIV in Tanzanian adults

Critiques of biomedical research in low-resource settings typically centre on clinical trials and the ‘dissymmetries of power’ between the researched and those benefiting from the products of research. It is important to extend this critical lens to other forms of global health research. We conducted a qualitative study in Tanzania to explore meaning and experiences of participating in a clinical observational study evaluating the safety and efficacy of current practice for treating HIV and malaria co-infection. Focus group discussions and in-depth interviews were undertaken with 124 study participants, study staff and health workers. Participants' understanding of the study's research aims was limited, but the practice of participation – engaging with research staff and materials – appeared to facilitate interpretations of the study's value, conceptualised as a ‘service’. For those peripheral to the study, however, interpretations of it reflected existing suspicions of experimental research. Our findings indicate the importance of considering the expectations, roles and responsibilities constructed through the practice of participation in different types of research, and how they relate to legacies of research. Understanding how networks of research practice intersect local social and historical contexts can extend discussions of collaboration and engagement with research in low-resource settings.

Engaging diverse social and cultural worlds: perspectives on benefits in international clinical research from South african communities

The issue of benefits in international clinical research is highly controversial. Against the background of wide recognition of the need to share benefits of research, the nature of benefits remains strongly contested. Little is known about the perspectives of research populations on this issue and the extent to which research ethics discourses and guidelines are salient to the expectations and aspirations existing on the ground. This exploratory study contributes to filling this void by examining perspectives of people in low-income South African communities on benefits in international clinical research. Twenty-four individuals with and without experience of being involved in clinical research participated in in-depth interviews. Respondents felt that ancillary care should be provided to clinical research participants, while a clinical study conducted in particular community should bring better health to its members through post-trial benefits. Respondents' perspectives were grounded in the perception that the ultimate goal of international clinical research is to improve local health. We argue that perspectives and understandings of the respondents are shaped by local moral traditions rather than clinical research specificities and require attention as valid moral claims. It is necessary to acknowledge such claims and cultural worlds from which they emerge, thus building the foundation for equal and embracing dialogue to bridge different perspectives and handle contradicting expectations.

'The words will pass with the blowing wind': staff and parent views of the deferred consent process, with prior assent, used in an emergency fluids trial in two African hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To document and explore the views and experiences of key stakeholders regarding the consent procedures of an emergency research clinical trial examining immediate fluid resuscitation strategies, and to discuss the implications for similar trials in future.

METHODS

A social science sub-study of the FEAST (Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy) trial. Interviews were held with trial team members (n = 30), health workers (n = 15) and parents (n = 51) from two purposively selected hospitals in Soroti, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya.

FINDINGS

Overall, deferred consent with prior assent was seen by staff and parents as having the potential to protect the interests of both patients and researchers, and to avoid delays in starting treatment. An important challenge is that the validity of verbal assent is undermined when inadequate initial information is poorly understood. This concern needs to be balanced against the possibility that full prior consent on admission potentially causes harm through introducing delays. Full prior consent also potentially imposes worries on parents that clinicians are uncertain about how to proceed and that clinicians want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the child's outcome (some parents' interpretation of the need for signed consent). Voluntariness is clearly compromised for both verbal assent and full prior consent in a context of such vulnerability and stress. Further challenges in obtaining verbal assent were: what to do in the absence of the household decision-maker (often the father); and how medical staff handle parents not giving a clear agreement or refusal.

CONCLUSION

While the challenges identified are faced in all research in low-income settings, they are magnified for emergency trials by the urgency of decision making and treatment needs. Consent options will need to be tailored to particular studies and settings, and might best be informed by consultation with staff members and community representatives using a deliberative approach.

Benefits and payments for research participants: experiences and views from a research centre on the Kenyan coast

Background

There is general consensus internationally that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and should be avoided or reduced. However, what constitutes fair benefits, and the exact nature of the benefits and their mode of provision can be strongly contested. Empirical studies have the potential to contribute viewpoints and experiences to debates and guidelines, but few have been conducted. We conducted a study to support the development of guidelines on benefits and payments for studies conducted by the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust programme in Kilifi, Kenya.

Methods

Following an initial broad based survey of cash, health services and other items being offered during research by all programme studies (n = 38 studies), interviews were held with research managers (n = 9), and with research staff involved in 8 purposively selected case studies (n = 30 interviewees). Interviews explored how these ‘benefits’ were selected and communicated, experiences with their administration, and recommendations for future guidelines. Data fed into a consultative workshop attended by 48 research staff and health managers, which was facilitated by an external ethicist.

Findings

The most commonly provided benefits were medical care (for example free care, and strengthened quality of care), and lunch or snacks. Most cash given to participants was reimbursement of transport costs (for example to meet appointments or facilitate use of services when unexpectedly sick), but these payments were often described by research participants as benefits. Challenges included: tensions within households and communities resulting from lack of clarity and agreement on who is eligible for benefits; suspicion regarding motivation for their provision; and confusion caused by differences between studies in types and levels of benefits.

Conclusions

Research staff differed in their views on how benefits should be approached. Echoing elements of international benefit sharing and ancillary care debates, some research staff saw research as based on goodwill and partnership, and aimed to avoid costs to participants and a commercial relationship; while others sought to maximise participant benefits given the relative wealth of the institution and the multiple community needs. An emerging middle position was to strengthen collateral or indirect medical benefits to communities through collaborations with the Ministry of Health to support sustainability.