Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting

The importance of global bioethics to paediatric health care

The paradigm of values adopted by the global health community has a palpable, albeit often unseen, impact on patient health care. In this Viewpoint, we investigate an inherent tension in the core values of medical ethics and clinical practice that could explain why paediatric health care faces resource constraints despite compelling economic and societal imperatives to prioritise child health and wellbeing. The dominant narrative in the philosophy of medicine tends to disproportionately underscore values of independence and self-determination, which becomes problematic in the context of paediatric patients, who by their very nature epitomise vulnerability and dependence. A double-jeopardy situation arises when disadvantaged children see their inherent dependence leveraged against them. We illustrate this predicament through specific examples relating to rights and obligations and to autonomy. Alternative value perspectives-communitarianism and relational autonomy-might offer more robust protection for vulnerable children. A shift away from the dominant narrative towards a more explicit and inclusive discussion of values is necessary. Such a shift requires giving a legitimate platform to diverse perspectives, with the presumption that collective moral progress is possible; this endeavour is embodied by global bioethics. Successful implementation of global bioethics, in turn, hinges on close collaboration between practicing clinicians and bioethicists. Taking global bioethics seriously and actively pursuing collaboration could help the global health community achieve more equitable health care.

Framing rehabilitation through health policy and systems research: priorities for strengthening rehabilitation

Background

Recent estimates report that 2.4 billion people with health conditions globally could benefit from rehabilitation. While the benefits of rehabilitation for individuals and society have been described in the literature, many individuals, especially in low- and middle-income countries do not have access to quality rehabilitation. As the need for rehabilitation continues to increase, it is crucial that health systems are adequately prepared to meet this need. Practice- and policy-relevant evidence plays an important role in health systems strengthening efforts. The aim of this paper is to report on the outcome of a global consultative process to advance the development of a research framework to stimulate health policy and systems research (HPSR) for rehabilitation, in order to generate evidence needed by key stakeholders.

Methods

A multi-stakeholder participatory technical consultation was convened by WHO to develop a research framework. This meeting included participants from selected Member States, rehabilitation experts, HPSR experts, public health researchers, civil society and other stakeholders from around the world. The meeting focused on introducing systems approaches to stakeholders and deliberating on priority rehabilitation issues in health systems. Participants were allocated to one of four multi-stakeholder groups with a facilitator to guide the structured technical consultations. Qualitative data in the form of written responses to guiding questions were collected during the structured technical consultations. A technical working group was then established to analyse the data and extract its emerging themes. This informed the development of the HPSR framework for rehabilitation and a selection of preliminary research questions that exemplify how the framework might be used.

Results

A total of 123 individuals participated in the multi-stakeholder technical consultations. The elaborated framework is informed by an ecological model and puts forth elements of the six WHO traditional building blocks of the health system, while emphasizing additional components pertinent to rehabilitation, such as political priority, engagement and participatory approaches, and considerations regarding demand and access. Importantly, the framework highlights the multilevel interactions needed across health systems in order to strengthen rehabilitation. Additionally, an initial set of research questions was proposed as a primer for how the framework might be used.

Conclusions

Strengthening health systems to meet the increasing need for rehabilitation will require undertaking more HPSR to inform the integration of rehabilitation into health systems globally. We anticipate that the proposed framework and the emerging research questions will support countries in their quest to increase access to rehabilitation for their populations.

The development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services: Evidence, expertise and ethics in a priority setting process

Health systems in fragile states need to respond to shifting demographics, burden of disease and socio-economic circumstances in the revision of their health service packages. This entails making difficult decisions about what is and is not included therein, especially in resource-constrained settings offering or striving for universal health coverage. In this paper we turn the lens on the 2017-2021 development of Afghanistan's Integrated Package of Essential Health Services (IPEHS) to analyse the dynamics of the priority setting process and the role and value of evidence. Using participant observation of meetings and interviews with 25 expert participants, we conducted a qualitative study of the consultation process aimed at examining the characteristics of its technical, socio-cultural and organisational aspects, in particular data use and expert input, and how they influenced how evidence was discussed, taken up, and used (or not used) in the process. Our analysis proposes that the particular dynamics shaped by the context, information landscape and expert input shaped and operationalized knowledge sharing and its application in such a way to constitute a sort of "vernacular evidence". Our findings underline the importance of paying attention to the constellation of the priority setting processes in order to contribute to an ethical allocation of resources, particularly in contexts of resource scarcity and humanitarian need.

Tales of treatment and new perspectives for global health research on antimicrobial resistance

Global health champions modernism and biomedical knowledge but tends to neglect knowledge, beliefs and identities of rural communities in low-income and middle-income countries. The topic of antimicrobial resistance represents these common challenges, wherein the growing emphasis on public engagement offers a yet underdeveloped opportunity to generate perspectives and forms of knowledge that are not typically incorporated into research and policy. The medical humanities as an interdisciplinary approach to illness and health behaviour play a central role in cultivating this potential-in particular, through the field's emphasis on phenomenological and intersubjective approaches to knowledge generation and its interest in dialogue between medicine, the humanities and the broader public.We present a case study of public engagement that incorporates three medical humanities methods: participatory co-production, photographic storytelling and dialogue between researchers and the public. Situated in the context of northern Thailand, we explore subcases on co-production workshops with villagers, tales of treatment shared by traditional healers and dialogue surrounding artistic display in an international photo exhibition. Our starting assumption for the case study analysis was that co-produced local inputs can (and should) broaden the understanding of the sociocultural context of antimicrobial resistance.Our case study illustrates the potential of medical humanities methods in public engagement to foreground cultural knowledge, personal experience and 'lay' sensemaking surrounding health systems and healing (including medicine use). Among others, the engagement activities enabled us to formulate and test locally grounded hypotheses, gain new insights into the social configuration of treatment seeking and reflect on the relationship between traditional healing and modern medicine in the context of antimicrobial resistance. We conclude that medical-humanities-informed forms of public engagement should become a standard component of global health research, but they require extensive evaluation to assess benefits and risks comprehensively.

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by researchers from institutions in high‐income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high‐income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research.

Ethical Considerations Regarding Global Surgery Experiences in Canadian General Surgery Residencies: A Preliminary Discussion

OBJECTIVE

Recently, there has been an explosion of interest in global surgery (GS) among students, residents and surgeons. However, little information exists regarding the ethical landscape of GS in general surgery residencies. Using an American College of Physicians position paper on the ethical obligations of global health experiences as a reference, this study provides a preliminary discussion of how GS experiences in Canadian residencies compare to the American College of Physicians-proposed ethical standards.

DESIGN

The Program Director (PD) at each Canadian general surgery residency program was invited to a complete an online survey.

RESULTS

All 17 PDs participated. Relative to the position paper, very few PDs included underserved settings in high income countries in their definitions of GS. Only 7 of 15 programs offer predeparture training for residents. Similarly, funding was available at less than half of all institutions. There is a need for the development of frameworks to assess the ethics of GS programs. Similarly, mechanisms on how to build relationships that are maximally beneficial for the stakeholders in resource-limited environments are not yet well established.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to look at the ethical GS landscape in general surgery residencies across Canada. This study may assist other residencies in the development and tailoring of ethical GS programs. These results show the need for further characterization of the training, development and monitoring of GS programs.

Identifying research priorities to improve the health of incarcerated populations: results of citizens' juries in Australian prisons

Health disparities in incarcerated populations should guide investment in the health care and research of these communities. Although users of health-care services are important in providing input into decisions about research, the voices of people in prison are absent regarding research into their health. In this Health Policy paper, we present priorities for research into the health of people in prison according to people in prison themselves. By use of a deliberative research approach, citizens' juries were conducted in six prisons (three men's and three women's prisons) in Australia. Participants were selected following submissions of expression of interest forms that were distributed within the prisons. Prerecorded information by experts in the health of incarcerated people was shown to participants. Participants deliberated for up to 4 h before agreeing on five research priorities. All citizens' juries endorsed mental health as a number one research priority. Prison health-care services, alcohol and other drug use, education, and infectious diseases were identified as research priorities by most citizens' juries. Focal points within priorities included serious mental illness; grief and trauma; medication management; health-care service access, quality, and resources; drug withdrawal and peer support; prison-based needle and syringe programmes; and health and life skills education. If endeavours in research priority setting are to consider health equity goals, the views of our most health affected citizens need to be included.

HIV prevention research and COVID-19: putting ethics guidance to the test

BACKGROUND

Critical public health measures implemented to mitigate the spread of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic have disrupted health research worldwide, including HIV prevention research. While general guidance has been issued for the responsible conduct of research in these challenging circumstances, the contours of the dueling COVID-19 and HIV/AIDS pandemics raise some critical ethical issues for HIV prevention research. In this paper, we use the recently updated HIV Prevention Trials Network (HPTN) Ethics Guidance Document (EGD) to situate and analyze key ethical challenges related to the conduct of HIV prevention research during the COVID-19 pandemic as well as identify potential areas for refinement of the guidance document based on this unprecedented state of affairs.

MAIN BODY

Necessary actions taken for HIV prevention research studies due to the COVID-19 pandemic involve an array of ethical issues including those related to: (1) risk mitigation; (2) behavior change; (3) compounding vulnerability; (4) community engagement; (5) trial reopening; and 6) shifting research priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of the dueling HIV and COVID-19 global pandemics, research teams and sponsors must be nimble in responding to the rapidly changing environment by being sensitive to the associated ethical issues. The HTPN EGD provides a rich set of tools to help identify, analyze and address many of these issues. At the same time, future refinements of the HPTN EGD and other research ethics guidance could be strengthened by providing explicit advice regarding the ethical issues associated with disrupted research and the reopening of studies. In addition, additional consideration should be given to appropriately balancing domains of risk (e.g., physical versus social), addressing the vulnerability of research staff and community partners, and responding to un-anticipatable ancillary care needs of participants and communities. Appropriately addressing these issues will necessitate conceptual work, which would benefit from the careful documentation of the actual ethical issues encountered in research, the strategies implemented to overcome them, and their success in doing so. Throughout all of these efforts, it is critical to remember that the HIV pandemic not be forgotten in the rush to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Setting a research agenda to improve community health: An inclusive mixed-methods approach in Northern Uganda

BACKGROUND

The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals stress the importance of equitable partnerships in research and practice that integrate grass-roots knowledge, leadership, and expertise. However, priorities for health research in low-and-middle income countries are set almost exclusively by external parties and priorities, while end-users remain "researched on" not "researched with". This paper presents the first stage of a Community-Based Participatory Research-inspired project to engage communities and public-health end-users in setting a research agenda to improve health in their community.

METHODS

Photovoice was used in Kuc, Gulu District, Uganda to engage community members in the selection of a research topic for future public health research and intervention. Alcohol-Use Disorders emerged from this process the health issue that most negatively impacts the community. Following identification of this issue, a cross-sectional survey was conducted using the Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test (n = 327) to triangulate Photovoice findings and to estimate the prevalence of Alcohol-Use Disorders in Kuc. Logistic regression was used to test for associations with demographic characteristics and Alcohol-Use Disorders.

RESULTS

Photovoice generated four prominent themes, including alcohol related issues, sanitation and compound cleanliness, water quality and access, and infrastructure. Alcohol-Use Disorders were identified by the community as the most important driver of poor health. Survey results indicated that 23.55% of adults in Kuc had a probable Alcohol Use Disorder, 16.45 percentage points higher than World Health Organization estimates for Uganda.

CONCLUSIONS

Community members engaged in the participatory, bottom-up approach offered by the research team to develop a research agenda to improve health in the community. Participants honed in on the under-researched and underfunded topic of Alcohol-Use Disorders. The findings from Photovoice were validated by survey results, thereby solidifying the high prevalence of Alcohol-Use Disorders as the health outcome that will be targeted through future long-term research and partnership.

COVID-19 Pandemic Prompts a Paradigm Shift in Global Emergency Medicine: Multidirectional Education and Remote Collaboration

To date, the practice of global emergency medicine (GEM) has involved being "on the ground" supporting in-country training of local learners, conducting research, and providing clinical care. This face-to-face interaction has been understood as critically important for developing partnerships and building trust. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought significant uncertainty worldwide, including international travel restrictions of indeterminate permanence. Following the 2020 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine meeting, the Global Emergency Medicine Academy (GEMA) sought to enhance collective understanding of best practices in GEM training with a focus on multidirectional education and remote collaboration in the setting of COVID-19. GEMA members led an initiative to outline thematic areas deemed most pertinent to the continued implementation of impactful GEM programming within the physical and technologic confines of a pandemic. Eighteen GEM practitioners were divided into four workgroups to focus on the following themes: advances in technology, valuation, climate impacts, skill translation, research/scholastic projects, and future challenges. Several opportunities were identified: broadened availability of technology such as video conferencing, Internet, and smartphones; online learning; reduced costs of cloud storage and printing; reduced carbon footprint; and strengthened local leadership. Skills and knowledge bases of GEM practitioners, including practicing in resource-poor settings and allocation of scarce resources, are translatable domestically. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated a paradigm shift in the practice of GEM, identifying a previously underrecognized potential to both strengthen partnerships and increase accessibility. This time of change has provided an opportunity to enhance multidirectional education and remote collaboration to improve global health equity.

An Ethics-based Approach to Global Health Research Part 2: Strategies for Overcoming Logistic and Implementation Challenges

With the growth of global pharmacy partnerships and collaborative research, particularly between high-income countries and low- or middle-income countries, it is necessary to establish best practices for fair and ethical collaboration and research. There is a gap in the pharmacy literature in this regard. Through this commentary, authors will present a pathway for future global health researchers including generating ideas based on mutual needs of the partnership and the community; exploring the importance of regulations including the need to conduct research and partnership projects within the confines of each participant's professional scope of practice, expertise, and licensure; describing the need to develop agreements and the components that should be included in such an agreement; discussing ethical guidelines for research planning, obtaining ethical approval, and planning for adverse events; and illustrating ethical considerations for research implementation with considerations around consent, data collection, linking patients to care after the completion of the study, and dissemination. Global examples, with a pharmacy-specific approach where applicable, within each section highlight the importance of discussion and action around ethics and equity when pursuing collaborative research, recognizing that many of these situations involve difficult decisions.

An Ethics-based approach to Global Health Research Part 3: Emphasis on Partnership Funding

Acquiring funding for global health research within pharmacy can be challenging, particularly for new investigators who may have a strong interest in resolving global dilemmas related to health. Moreover, there can be inherent imbalances and ethical issues when navigating the funding process for global partnerships. There exists a lack of literature providing ethical guidance for mitigating dilemmas that may arise. This commentary discusses current funding streams for investigators interested in global pharmacy research, as well as specific recommendations for the funding process. These recommendations include managing award funds, ethical considerations for funding research partnerships, and balancing power between low to middle income countries and high-income countries. Lastly, case examples of funding partnerships involving pharmacy are highlighted, emphasizing important lessons learned. This commentary addresses the critical need for providing global health researchers with both important considerations and experience-based recommendations for navigating global funding partnerships using an ethical approach.

Health Outcome Prioritization in Alzheimer's Disease: Understanding the Ethical Landscape

BACKGROUND

Dementia has been described as the greatest global health challenge in the 21st Century on account of longevity gains increasing its incidence, escalating health and social care pressures. These pressures highlight ethical, social, and political challenges about healthcare resource allocation, what health improvements matter to patients, and how they are measured. This study highlights the complexity of the ethical landscape, relating particularly to the balances that need to be struck when allocating resources; when measuring and prioritizing outcomes; and when individual preferences are sought.

OBJECTIVE

Health outcome prioritization is the ranking in order of desirability or importance of a set of disease-related objectives and their associated cost or risk. We analyze the complex ethical landscape in which this takes place in the most common dementia, Alzheimer's disease.

METHODS

Narrative review of literature published since 2007, incorporating snowball sampling where necessary. We identified, thematized, and discussed key issues of ethical salience.

RESULTS

Eight areas of ethical salience for outcome prioritization emerged: 1) Public health and distributive justice, 2) Scarcity of resources, 3) Heterogeneity and changing circumstances, 4) Knowledge of treatment, 5) Values and circumstances, 6) Conflicting priorities, 7) Communication, autonomy and caregiver issues, and 8) Disclosure of risk.

CONCLUSION

These areas highlight the difficult balance to be struck when allocating resources, when measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and when individual preferences are sought. We conclude by reflecting on how tools in social sciences and ethics can help address challenges posed by resource allocation, measuring and prioritizing outcomes, and eliciting stakeholder preferences.