Developing the ethics of implementation research in health

Ethical Issues in Breastfeeding and Lactation Interventions: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Infant feeding interventions that promote and support breastfeeding are considered important contributions to global public health. As these interventions often target private settings (e.g., individuals' homes) and involve vulnerable populations (e.g., pregnant women, infants, and underprivileged families), a keen awareness of ethical issues is crucial.

RESEARCH AIM

The purpose of this scoping review was to capture the key elements of the current ethical discourse regarding breastfeeding and lactation interventions.

METHOD

A scoping review was conducted using Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) methodology to identify the ethical issues of breastfeeding and lactation interventions as they are reflected in the scholarly literature published between January 1990 and October 2022. Abstracts (N = 3715) from PubMed, ScienceDirect, JSTOR and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened. The final sample consisted of 26 publications.

RESULTS

The recurring ethical issues identified in these studies were: the normative assumptions of motherhood; maternal autonomy and informed choice; information disclosure, balancing risks and benefits, and counseling practices; stigma and social context; ethics of health communication in breastfeeding campaigns; and the ethical acceptability of financial incentives in breastfeeding interventions.

CONCLUSION

This review illustrated that, while a wide range of ethical arguments were examined, the emphasis has been primarily on accounting for mothers' experiences and lactating persons' choices, as well as achieving public health objectives relating to infant nutrition in breastfeeding interventions. To effectively and ethically implement breastfeeding and lactation interventions, we must consider the social, economic, and cultural contexts in which they occur. One key learning identified was that women's experiences were missing in these interventions and, in response, we suggest moving beyond the dichotomous approach of individual health versus population health.

Inequities in kidney health and kidney care

Health inequity refers to the existence of unnecessary and unfair differences in the ability of an individual or community to achieve optimal health and access appropriate care. Kidney diseases, including acute kidney injury and chronic kidney disease, are the epitome of health inequity. Kidney disease risk and outcomes are strongly associated with inequities that occur across the entire clinical course of disease. Insufficient investment across the spectrum of kidney health and kidney care is a fundamental source of inequity. In addition, social and structural inequities, including inequities in access to primary health care, education and preventative strategies, are major risk factors for, and contribute to, poorer outcomes for individuals living with kidney diseases. Access to affordable kidney care is also highly inequitable, resulting in financial hardship and catastrophic health expenditure for the most vulnerable. Solutions to these injustices require leadership and political will. The nephrology community has an important role in advocacy and in identifying and implementing solutions to dismantle inequities that affect kidney health.

mHealth to improve implementation of TB contact investigation: a case study from Uganda

BACKGROUND

Implementation science offers a systematic approach to adapting innovations and delivery strategies to new contexts but has yet to be widely applied in low- and middle-income countries. The Fogarty Center for Global Health Studies is sponsoring a special series, "Global Implementation Science Case Studies," to address this gap.

METHODS

We developed a case study for this series describing our approach and lessons learned while conducting a prospective, multi-modal study to design, implement, and evaluate an implementation strategy for TB contact investigation in Kampala, Uganda. The study included formative, evaluative, and summative phases that allowed us to develop and test an adapted contact investigation intervention involving home-based sample collection for TB and HIV testing. We concurrently developed a multi-component mHealth implementation strategy involving fingerprint scanning, electronic decision support, and automated reporting of test results via text message. We then conducted a household-randomized, hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial comparing the adapted intervention and implementation strategy to usual care. Our assessment included nested quantitative and qualitative studies to understand the strategy's acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, and costs. Reflecting on this process with a multi-disciplinary team of implementing researchers and local public health partners, we provide commentary on the previously published studies and how the results influenced the adaptation of international TB contact investigation guidelines to fit the local context.

RESULTS

While the trial did not show improvements in contact investigation delivery or public health outcomes, our multi-modal evaluation strategy helped us identify which elements of home-based, mHealth-facilitated contact investigation were feasible, acceptable, and appropriate and which elements reduced its fidelity and sustainability, including high costs. We identified a need for better tools for measuring implementation that are simple, quantitative, and repeatable and for greater attention to ethical issues in implementation science.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, a theory-informed, community-engaged approach to implementation offered many learnings and actionable insights for delivering TB contact investigation and using implementation science in low-income countries. Future implementation trials, especially those incorporating mHealth strategies, should apply the learnings from this case study to enhance the rigor, equity, and impact of implementation research in global health settings.

Capacity building through comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship: an approach for translating knowledge into practice

BACKGROUND

Implementation research (IR) is increasingly gaining popularity as the act of carrying an intention into effect. It is thus an important approach to addressing individual practices, policies, programmes and other technologies to solving public health problems. Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) continue to experience public health problems which could be addressed using implementation research. These countries however fall behind prioritizing implementation research due to the disorganized approach used to providing knowledge about the value and scope of implementation research. This paper seeks to explain steps taken to resolve this by capacity strengthening activities through a comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship programme which was informed by needs assessment.

METHODS

The roll-out of the comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship was done in phases, including engaging the implementation research community through TDR Global, competency building for programme officers and ethical review board/committee members, and practical guidance to develop an implementation research proposal. The Bloom taxonomy guided the training whilst the Kirkpatrick Model was used for the evaluation of the effectiveness of the capacity building.

RESULTS

The findings identified critical areas of mentors and how mentorship should be structured and the most effective ways of delivering mentorship. These findings were used to develop a mentorship guide in IR. The mentorship guidance is to be used as a check-tool for mentoring participants during trainings as part of the package of resources in implementation research. It is also to be used in equipping review board members with knowledge on ethical issues in implementation research.

CONCLUSION

The approach for providing comprehensive implementation research training and mentorship for programme personnel has provided an opportunity for both potential mentors and mentees to make inputs into developing a mentorship guidance for LMICs. This guidance would help address mentorship initiation and implementation challenges in IR.

Research Partnerships with Patients Living with Type 2 Diabetes: Practices and Challenges in Quebec Among People New to Canada

Patients are increasingly encouraged to participate in health research programs as partners, with the aim to ensure that studies address their priorities. In response, the Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) has been created in Canada to transform the patient's role in research from a passive beneficiary to a more proactive partner of change within the healthcare system. This research investigates what people new to Canada living with type 2 diabetes think about participating in research partnerships. Using an ethnographic approach, 31 people new to Canada with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes were interviewed. Findings indicated that few people new to Canada were represented among the Diabetes Action Canada (DAC) Network's Circles of Patient Partners in Quebec. Barriers to engagement in research were: lack of information; competing priorities; language barrier and privacy concerns; preconceptions about being a patient partner; prejudices on research engagement as something demanding and binding; and the matter of religious and gender differences. Some participants questioned the extent to which involvement in research can really meet their expectations considering institutional control over research, funding requirements that often dictate priorities and the biomedical approach which still, in many respects, dominates health research. Implications for achieving equity, diversity, and inclusion of patient partners in research are discussed.

Combatting neo-Colonialism in Health Research: What can Aboriginal Health Research Ethics and Global Health Research Ethics Teach Each Other?

The ethics of research involving Aboriginal populations and low and middle-income country populations each developed out of a long history of exploitative research projects and partnerships. Commonalities and differences between the two fields have not yet been examined. This study undertook two independent literature searches for Aboriginal health research ethics and global health research ethics. Content analysis identified shared and differently emphasised ethical principles and concepts between the two fields. Shared ethical concepts like "benefit" and "capacity development" have been developed to guide collaborations in both Aboriginal health research and global health research. However, Aboriginal health research ethics gives much greater prominence to ethical principles that assist in decolonising research practice such as "self-determination", "community-control", and "community ownership". The paper argues that global health research ethics would benefit from giving greater emphasis to these principles to guide research practice, while justice as approached in global health research ethics may inform Aboriginal health research practice. With increasing attention being drawn to the need to decolonise global health research, the lessons Aboriginal health research ethics can offer may be especially timely.

The practice of hope in public health interventions: a qualitative single-case study

This study examines hope practices in the context of participation in a public health intervention. Theoretically, the study builds upon Cheryl Mattingly’s notion of hope as a practice, which renders the possibility of examining participants actions, interactions and challenges with participating. This analytical lens contributes knowledge about how interventions are incorporated into participants’ hopes for a future life and the consequences of intervening in peoples’ everyday lives. The study builds on empirical material from a pilot study of the primary preventive intervention known as TOF (Tidlig Opsporing og Forebyggelse—a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) which aimed to identify high risk individuals and provide targeted preventive services. A by-product of a larger qualitative study, itself based on the TOF pilot study in 2019, this single-case study illustrates how participants’ life situation influence how they interpret and manage activities in a public health intervention. The study shows how the practice of hope in public health interventions is closely linked to participants’ own interpretations of how participation can lead to a life worth living. The findings, which show that participants’ needs, and life situation influence the ways in which they respond to an intervention, adds to the complexity in intervention research. Further, the study illustrates some of the ethical challenges that arise when researchers intervene in people’s everyday life. It reinforces the need for ongoing critical reflection and attention to be directed at how those being studied articulate and practice hope.

Consent Requirements for Testing Health Policies: An Intercontinental Comparison of Expert Opinions

Individual informed consent is a central requirement for clinical research on human subjects, yet whether and how consent requirements should apply to health policy experiments (HPEs) remains unclear. HPEs test and evaluate public health policies prior to implementation. We interviewed 58 health experts in Tanzania, Bangladesh and Germany on informed consent requirements for HPEs. Health experts across all countries favored a strong evidence base, prior information to the affected populations, and individual consent for ‘risky’ HPEs. Differences pertained to individual risk perception, how and when consent by group representatives should be obtained and whether HPEs could be treated as health policies. The study adds to representative consent options for HPEs, yet shows that more research is needed in this field – particularly in the present Covid-19 pandemic which has highlighted the need for HPEs nationally and globally.

A guide to systems-level, participatory, theory-informed implementation research in global health

Implementation research is a multidisciplinary field that addresses the complex phenomenon of how context influences our ability to deliver evidence-informed healthcare. There is increasing realisation of the importance of applying robust implementation research to scale-up life-saving interventions that meet health-related sustainable development goals. However, the lack of high-quality implementation research is impeding our ability to meet these targets, globally. Within implementation research, theory refers to the proposed hypothesis and/or explanation of how an intervention is expected to interact with the local context and actors to bring about change. Although there is increasing interest in applying theory to understand how and why implementation programmes work in real-world settings, global health actors still tend to favour impact evaluations conducted in controlled environments. This may, in part, be due to the relative novelty as well as methodological complexity of implementation research and the need to draw on divergent disciplines, including epidemiology, implementation science and social sciences. Because of this, implementation research is faced with a particular set of challenges about how to reconcile different ways of thinking and constructing knowledge about healthcare interventions. To help translate some of the ambiguity surrounding how divergent theoretical approaches and methods contribute to implementation research, we draw on our multidisciplinary expertise in the field, particularly in global health. We offer an overview of the different theoretical approaches and describe how they are applied to continuously select, monitor and evaluate implementation strategies throughout the different phases of implementation research. In doing so, we offer a relatively brief, user-focused guide to help global health actors implement and report on evaluation of evidence-based and scalable interventions, programmes and practices.

Ethical Dimensions of Public Health Actions and Policies With Special Focus on COVID-19

During pandemics, the ethicists, public health professionals, and human rights advocates raise a red flag about different public health actions that should, at best, be addressed through integrated, global policies. How to rationalize the healthcare resources and prioritize the cases is not a recent challenge but the serious concern about that is how to achieve this while not increasing the vulnerability of the disadvantaged population. Healthcare professionals use different scoring systems as a part of their decision-making so the medical teams and triage committees can allocate resources for predictable health outcomes and prognosis as well as to appropriately triage the patients accordingly. However, the value of the existing scoring systems to manage COVID-19 cases is not well-established yet. Part of this problem includes managing non-COVID patients with chronic medical conditions like non-communicable diseases and addressing their medical needs during the pandemic complex context in a way to avoid worsening their conditions and, on the other hand, avoid hindering the establishment of comprehensive standards for dealing with COVID-19. In this article, we discuss this dilemma as well as how preexisting ethical standards were challenged by COVID-19. We also discuss how monitoring the consistent application of ethical standards during the medical trials of new medications, vaccines, or unproven medical interventions is also a critical issue.

Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries

The call for universal health coverage requires the urgent implementation and scale-up of interventions that are known to be effective, in resource-poor settings. Achieving this objective requires high-quality implementation research (IR) that evaluates the complex phenomenon of the influence of context on the ability to effectively deliver evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, IR for global health is failing to apply a robust, theoretically driven approach, leading to ethical concerns associated with research that is not methodologically sound.

Inappropriate methods are often used in IR to address and report on context. This may result in a lack in understanding of how to effectively adapt the intervention to the new setting and a lack of clarity in conceptualising whether there is sufficient evidence to generalise findings from previous IR to a new setting, or if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed. Some of the ethical issues arising from this shortcoming include poor-quality research that may needlessly expose vulnerable participants to research that has not been adapted to suit local needs and priorities, and the inappropriate use of RCTs that denies participants in the control arm access to treatment that is effective within the local context.

To address these concerns, we propose a complementary approach to clinical equipoise for IR, known as contextual equipoise. We discuss challenges in the evaluation of context and also with assessing the certainty of evidence to justify an RCT. Finally, we describe methods that can be applied to improve the evaluation and reporting of context and to help understand if contextual equipoise can be justified or if significant adaptations are required. We hope our analysis offers helpful insight to better understand and ensure that the ethical principle of beneficence is upheld in the real-world contexts of IR in low-resource settings.

Priority Setting as an Ethical Imperative in Managing Global Dialysis Access and Improving Kidney Care

Priority-setting dilemmas arise when trade-offs must be made regarding the kinds of services that should be provided and to whom, thereby withholding other services from individuals or groups that could benefit from them. Currently, it is practically impossible for lower-income countries to provide dialysis for all patients with kidney failure; however, the fundamental premise of the human right to health, while acknowledging the current resource constraints, is the progressive realization of access to care for all. In this article we outline the rationale for priority setting, starting with the global goal of achieving universal health coverage, the prerequisites for fair and transparent priority setting, and discuss how these may apply to expensive care such as dialysis. Priority is inherently a value-laden process, and cannot be whittled down to technical considerations of clinical or cost effectiveness alone. Fair and transparent priority setting should originate from population health needs, be based on evidence, and be associated with ethical values or principles. This requires effective engagement with relevant stakeholders. Once policies are developed and implemented, good oversight is crucial to ensure accountability and to provide iterative feedback such that the goals of universal health coverage may be progressively realized.

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.

From informed consent to adherence: factors influencing involvement in mass drug administration with ivermectin for malaria elimination in The Gambia

Background

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends consideration of mass drug administration (MDA) for malaria control in low-endemic settings approaching elimination. However, MDA remains a controversial strategy, as multiple individual, social, and operational factors have shown to affect its acceptability at local levels. This is further complicated by inconsistent definitions of key indicators derived from individual and community involvement—coverage, adherence, and compliance—that cast doubts about the actual and potential epidemiological impact of MDA on disease control and elimination. This study aimed to identify limitations and enabling factors impacting involvement at different stages of a large cluster-randomized trial assessing the effect of combining dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) and ivermectin (IVM) in malaria transmission in The Gambia.

Methods

This social science study used a mixed-methods approach. Qualitative data were collected in intervention and control villages through ethnographic methods, including in-depth interviews (IDIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and participant observation conducted with trial participants and decliners, community leaders, and field staff. A cross-sectional survey was conducted in the intervention villages after the first year of MDA. Both strands of the study explored malaria knowledge and opinions, social dynamics influencing decision-making, as well as perceived risks, burdens, and benefits associated with this MDA.

Results

157 IDIs and 11 FGDs were conducted, and 864 respondents were included in the survey. Barriers and enabling factors to involvement were differentially influential at the various stages of the MDA. Issues of social influence, concerns regarding secondary effects of the medication, costs associated with malaria, and acceptability of the implementing organization, among other factors, differently affected the decision-making processes throughout the trial. Rather than a linear trajectory, involvement in this MDA trial was subjected to multiple revaluations from enrolment and consent to medicine intake and adherence to treatment.

Conclusions

This study went beyond the individual factors often associated with coverage and adherence, and found that nuanced social dynamics greatly influence the decision-making process at all phases of the trial. These issues need to be consider for MDA implementation strategies and inform discussions about more accurate ways of reporting on critical effectiveness indicators.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12936-021-03732-z.

Value of peer mentoring for early career professional, research, and personal development: a case study of implementation scientists

Effective mentoring is a key mechanism propelling successful research and academic careers, particularly for early career scholars. Most mentoring programs focus on models pairing senior and early career researchers, with limited focus on peer mentoring. Peer mentoring may be especially advantageous within emerging areas such as implementation science (IS) where challenges to traditional mentoring may be more prevalent. This special communication highlights the value of peer mentoring by describing a case study of an early career IS peer mentoring group. We delineate our curriculum and structure; support and processes; and products and outcomes. We highlight important group member characteristics to consider during group formation and continuation. The group's long-term (6 years) success was attributed to the balance of similarities and differences among group members. Members were in a similar career phase and used similar methodologies but studied different health topics at different institutions. Group members gave and received instrumental and psychosocial support and shared resources and knowledge. Peer mentoring can serve an important function to provide emotional, logistical, and professional development support for early career scholars. Our case study highlights strategies to foster peer mentoring groups that provide a generalizable blueprint and opportunity for improved outcomes for early career professionals.

Meeting Indigenous youth where they are at: knowing and doing with 2SLGBTTQQIA and gender non-conforming Indigenous youth: a qualitative case study

Background

Research carried out in partnership with Indigenous youth at The Native Youth Sexual Health Network (NYSHN) demonstrates that Indigenous youth can (and do) develop and implement public health interventions amongst their peers and within their communities, when supported by non-youth allies and mentors.

Methods

Together, NYSHN and Well Living House researchers co-designed a qualitative case study to demonstrate and document how Indigenous youth can and do practice their own form of public health implementation research (PHIR) in the realm of mental health promotion for 2SLGBTTQQIA and Gender Non-Conforming Indigenous youth. Academic and Indigenous youth researchers were: participant observers; conducted a focus group; and designed and implemented an online survey with Indigenous youth project participants. Governance, intellectual property, financial terms and respective academic and NYSHN roles and responsibilities were negotiated using a customized community research agreement. The data were thematically analyzed using a critical decolonizing lens that recognizes the historic and ongoing marginalization of Indigenous peoples while also highlighting the unique and diverse strengths of Indigenous communities’ knowledge and practice in maintaining their health and wellbeing.

Results

Analysis revealed how colonialism and intergenerational trauma have impacted Indigenous youth identity and the value of self-determination as it relates to their identity, their relationships, health and wellbeing. We also learned how knowing and doing about and for Indigenous youth needs to be youth determined – ‘nothing about us, without us’ -- yet also supported by allies. Finally, our analysis shares some promising practices in knowing and doing for and with Indigenous youth.

Conclusions

This study provides a reminder of the need to centre Indigenous youth throughout PHIR in order to realize sustainable benefit from research, services and programming. It emphasizes the need to recognize Indigenous youth as leaders and partners in these initiatives, support their efforts to self-determine, compensate them as partners, and prioritize Indigenous youth-determined frameworks and accountability mechanisms.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-020-09863-3.

Sustainable Development Goals relevant to kidney health: an update on progress

Globally, more than 5 million people die annually from lack of access to critical treatments for kidney disease — by 2040, chronic kidney disease is projected to be the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Kidney diseases are particularly challenging to tackle because they are pathologically diverse and are often asymptomatic. As such, kidney disease is often diagnosed late, and the global burden of kidney disease continues to be underappreciated. When kidney disease is not detected and treated early, patient care requires specialized resources that drive up cost, place many people at risk of catastrophic health expenditure and pose high opportunity costs for health systems. Prevention of kidney disease is highly cost-effective but requires a multisectoral holistic approach. Each Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) has the potential to impact kidney disease risk or improve early diagnosis and treatment, and thus reduce the need for high-cost care. All countries have agreed to strive to achieve the SDGs, but progress is disjointed and uneven among and within countries. The six SDG Transformations framework can be used to examine SDGs with relevance to kidney health that require attention and reveal inter-linkages among the SDGs that should accelerate progress.

Working towards sustainable development is essential to tackle the rise in the global burden of non-communicable diseases, including kidney disease. Five years after the Sustainable Development Goal agenda was set, this Review examines the progress thus far, highlighting future challenges and opportunities, and explores the implications for kidney disease.

Each Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) has the potential to improve kidney health and prevent kidney disease by improving the general health and well-being of individuals and societies, and by protecting the environment.

Achievement of each SDG is interrelated to the achievement of multiple other SDGs; therefore, a multisectoral approach is required.

The global burden of kidney disease has been relatively underestimated because of a lack of data.

Structural violence and the social determinants of health have an important impact on kidney disease risk.

Kidney disease is the leading global cause of catastrophic health expenditure, in part because of the high costs of kidney replacement therapy.

Achievement of universal health coverage is the minimum requirement to ensure sustainable and affordable access to early detection and quality treatment of kidney disease and/or its risk factors, which should translate to a reduction in the burden of kidney failure in the future.

Beyond Research Ethics: Novel Approaches of 3 Major Public Health Institutions to Provide Ethics Input on Public Health Practice Activities

Public health institutions increasingly realize the importance of creating a culture in their organizations that values ethics. When developing strategies to strengthen ethics, institutions will have to take into account that while public health research projects typically undergo thorough ethics review, activities considered public health practice may not be subjected to similar oversight. This approach, based on a research-practice dichotomy, is increasingly being criticized as it does not adequately identify and manage ethically relevant risks to those affected by nonresearch activities. As a reaction, 3 major public health institutions (the World Health Organization, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health Ontario) have implemented mechanisms for ethics review of public health practice activities. In this article, we describe and critically discuss the different modalities of the 3 approaches. We argue that although further evaluation is necessary to determine the effectiveness of the different approaches, public health institutions should strive to implement procedures to ensure that public health practice adheres to the highest ethical standards.

Bridging research integrity and global health epidemiology (BRIDGE) statement: guidelines for good epidemiological practice

BACKGROUND

Research integrity and research fairness have gained considerable momentum in the past decade and have direct implications for global health epidemiology. Research integrity and research fairness principles should be equally nurtured to produce high-quality impactful research-but bridging the two can lead to practical and ethical dilemmas. In order to provide practical guidance to researchers and epidemiologist, we set out to develop good epidemiological practice guidelines specifically for global health epidemiology, targeted at stakeholders involved in the commissioning, conduct, appraisal and publication of global health research.

METHODS

We developed preliminary guidelines based on targeted online searches on existing best practices for epidemiological studies and sought to align these with key elements of global health research and research fairness. We validated these guidelines through a Delphi consultation study, to reach a consensus among a wide representation of stakeholders.

RESULTS

A total of 45 experts provided input on the first round of e-Delphi consultation and 40 in the second. Respondents covered a range of organisations (including for example academia, ministries, NGOs, research funders, technical agencies) involved in epidemiological studies from countries around the world (Europe: 19; Africa: 10; North America: 7; Asia: 5; South-America: 3 Australia: 1). A selection of eight experts were invited for a face-to-face meeting. The final guidelines consist of a set of 6 standards and 42 accompanying criteria including study preparation, protocol development, data collection, data management, data analysis, dissemination and communication.

CONCLUSION

While guidelines will not by themselves guard global health from questionable and unfair research practices, they are certainly part of a concerted effort to ensure not only mutual accountability between individual researchers, their institutions and their funders but most importantly their joint accountability towards the communities they study and society at large.

Five Challenges in the Design and Conduct of IS Trials for HIV Prevention and Treatment

BACKGROUND

Implementation science (IS) trials in HIV treatment and prevention evaluate implementation strategies that deliver health-enhancing tools such as antiretroviral medicines or prevention technologies to those who need them, rather than evaluating the tools themselves.

METHOD

Opinion piece drawing on a non-systematic review of HIV prevention and treatment trials to inform an assessment of 5 key challenges for IS trials.

RESULTS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are an appropriate design for IS but must address 5 challenges. IS trials must be feasible to deliver, which will require addressing challenges in maintaining multisectoral partnerships, strengthening routine data, and clarifying ethical principles. IS trials should be informative, evaluating implementation strategies that are well designed and adequately described, and measuring implementation outcomes, coverage of tools, and, when appropriate, epidemiological impacts. IS trials should be rigorous, striving for internally valid estimates of effect by adopting best practices, and deploying optimal nonrandomized designs where randomization is not feasible. IS trials should be relevant, considering and documenting how "real-life" is the implementation monitoring and whether research participants are representative of the target population. Finally, IS trials should be useful, deploying process evaluations to provide results that can be used in onward decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

IS trials can help ensure that efficacious tools for HIV prevention and treatment have maximum impact in the real world. These trials will be an important component of this scientific agenda if they are feasible to deliver and if their results are informative, rigorous, relevant, and useful.

Capacity building for implementation research: a methodology for advancing health research and practice

BACKGROUND

Implementation research is increasingly being recognised as an important discipline seeking to maximise the benefits of evidence-based interventions. Although capacity-building efforts are ongoing, there has been limited attention on the contextual and health system peculiarities in low- and middle-income countries. Moreover, given the challenges encountered during the implementation of health interventions, the field of implementation research requires a creative attempt to build expertise for health researchers and practitioners simultaneously. With support from the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, we have developed an implementation research short course that targets both researchers and practitioners. This paper seeks to explain the course development processes and report on training evaluations, highlighting its relevance for inter-institutional and inter-regional capacity strengthening.

METHODS

The development of the implementation research course curriculum was categorised into four phases, namely the formation of a core curriculum development team, course content development, internal reviews and pilot, and external reviews and evaluations. Five modules were developed covering Introduction to implementation research, Methods in implementation research, Ethics and quality management in implementation research, Community and stakeholder engagement, and Dissemination in implementation research. Course evaluations were conducted using developed tools measuring participants' reactions and learning.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2018, the IR curriculum has been used to train a total of 165 researchers and practitioners predominantly from African countries, the majority of whom are males (57%) and researchers/academics (79.4%). Participants generally gave positive ratings (e.g. integration of concepts) for their reactions to the training. Under 'learnings', participants indicated improvement in their knowledge in areas such as identification of implementation research problems and questions.

CONCLUSION

The approach for training both researchers and practitioners offers a dynamic opportunity for the acquisition and sharing of knowledge for both categories of learners. This approach was crucial in demonstrating a key characteristic of implementation research (e.g. multidisciplinary) practically evident during the training sessions. Using such a model to effectively train participants from various low- and middle-income countries shows the opportunities this training curriculum offers as a capacity-building tool.

Developing the culture of ethics in population health intervention research in Canada

Population health intervention research (PHIR) is a particular field of health research that aims to generate knowledge that contributes to the sustainable improvement of population health by enabling the implementation of cross-sectoral solutions adapted to social realities. Despite the ethical issues that necessarily raise its social agenda, the ethics of PHIR is still not very formalized. Unresolved ethical challenges may limit its focus on health equity. This contribution aims to highlight some of these issues and calls on researchers to develop a culture of ethics in PHIR. Three complementary ways are proposed: to build an ethical concept specific to this field, to promote a shared space for critical reflection on PHIR ethics, and to develop the ethical competence in PHIR for which a preliminary framework is proposed.

Developing a framework of core competencies in implementation research for low/middle-income countries

The field of implementation research (IR) is growing. However, there are no recognised IR core competencies in low/middle-income countries (LMICs), nor consistent curriculum across IR training programs globally. The goal of this effort is to develop a framework of IR core competencies for training programs in LMICs. The framework was developed using a mixed-methods approach consisting of two online surveys with IR training coordinators (n = 16) and academics (n = 89) affiliated with seven LMIC institutions, and a modified-Delphi process to evaluate the domains, competencies and proficiency levels included in the framework. The final framework comprised of 11 domains, 59 competencies and 52 sub-competencies, and emphasised competencies for modifying contexts, strengthening health systems, addressing ethical concerns, engaging stakeholders and communication especially for LMIC settings, in addition to competencies on IR theories, methods and designs. The framework highlights the interconnectedness of domains and competencies for IR and practice, and training in IR following the outlined competencies is not a linear process but circular and iterative, and starting points for training may vary widely by the project, institution and challenge being addressed. The framework established the need for a theory-based approach to identifying proficiency levels for IR competencies (ie, to determine proficiency levels for IR based on generalisable educational theories for competency-based education), and the relevance of various IR competencies for LMICs compared with high-income settings. This framework is useful for identifying and evaluating competencies and trainings, and providing direction and support for professional development in IR.

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.

Ethical issues raised by cluster randomised trials conducted in low-resource settings: identifying gaps in the Ottawa Statement through an analysis of the PURE Malawi trial

The increasing use of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings raises unique ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomised Trials is the first international ethical guidance document specific to cluster trials, but it is unknown if it adequately addresses issues in low-resource settings. In this paper, we seek to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement relevant to cluster trials conducted in low-resource settings. Our method is (1) to analyse a prototypical cluster trial conducted in a low-resource setting (PURE Malawi trial) with the Ottawa Statement; (2) to identify ethical issues in the design or conduct of the trial not captured adequately and (3) to make recommendations for issues needing attention in forthcoming revisions to the Ottawa Statement Our analysis identified six ethical aspects of cluster randomised trials in low-resource settings that require further guidance. The forthcoming revision of the Ottawa Statement should provide additional guidance on these issues: (1) streamlining research ethics committee review for collaborating investigators who are affiliated with other institutions; (2) the classification of lay health workers who deliver study interventions as health providers or research participants; (3) the dilemma experienced by investigators when national standards seem to prohibit waivers of consent; (4) the timing of gatekeeper engagement, particularly when researchers face funding constraints; (5) providing ancillary care in health services or implementation trials when a routine care control arm is known to fall below national standards and (6) defining vulnerable participants needing protection in low-resource settings.

Five Dimensions of Research Ethics: A Stakeholder Framework for Creating a Climate of Research Integrity

The authors explore five dimensions of research ethics: (1) normative ethics, which includes meta-ethical questions; (2) compliance with regulations, statutes, and institutional policies; (3) the rigor and reproducibility of science; (4) social value; and (5) workplace relationships. Each of the five dimensions is important not only because it addresses an aspect of good research done in a good manner but also because it addresses the concerns of key stakeholders in the research enterprise. The five-dimension framework can guide institutions as they answer three questions central to any research ethics program: (1) Who should champion research ethics? (2) What should interventions look like? and (3) Who should participate in the interventions? The framework is valuable because the answers to these three questions are radically different depending on the dimension under consideration. An expanded vision of research ethics does not entail that institutions should require additional online training or approvals from institutional review boards. However, without acknowledging all five dimensions, programs risk missing an important aspect of research ethics or ignoring the interests of important stakeholders.

[Incorporating health equity into implementation research: review of conceptual modelsIncorporação da igualdade em saúde na pesquisa de implementação: revisão de modelos conceituais]

OBJECTIVE

Search for conceptual frameworks or models that incorporate aspects of health equity into implementation research and prepare a systematic synthesis of them.

METHODS

A systematic search was done of MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase, and LILACS (1965-2016), and Scopus (1998-2016) databases, employing, in addition, a snowball strategy and gray literature search. Article type was assessed, along with elements that were included on implementation research, the science of implementation, and health equity.

RESULTS

A total of 701 articles were found, of which 100 were included for review of relevance. Of these, 19 articles related to conceptual frameworks: 12 were general, five were on ethnic or racial disparities, and two related to child health. The most frequent categories were financing, infrastructure, advocacy, quality, internal barriers, and coverage. The least frequent were other sectors, outpatient needs, health status, and equity impact assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

In order to reduce health gaps and with them health inequities, it becomes necessary to have a consolidated implementation research framework that includes aspects of health equity. This framework would facilitate improving implementation processes for interventions, services, and health programs.

Health policy and systems research: towards a better understanding and review of ethical issues

Given the focus on health systems in the post-millennium development goal era and moving towards the sustainable development goals, there is a compelling need for a common framework for health policy and systems research ethics to guide researchers and facilitate review by research ethics committees. A consultation of global health policy and systems research and ethics experts was convened to identify ethical considerations relevant to health policy and systems research based on existing knowledge and to identify knowledge gaps through a scoping review and further expert deliberation. Health policy and systems research is highly complex and, in the absence of guidance documents, there is significant variability in ethics review. Although fundamental ethical principles pertain to both traditional clinical research and health policy and systems research, the application of these principles requires a comprehensive understanding of the nature of health policy and systems research with its distinct challenges. Such awareness must be raised among researchers and research ethics committees. Current research ethics committees lack familiarity with health policy and systems research and because health policy and systems research is conducted in real-world contexts, committees often have difficulties in determining whether a project is indeed research and/or requires ethical review. Given the strong current focus on health policy and systems research to rapidly improve health and health systems functioning globally, greater engagement and dialogue around the ethical concerns is required to optimise research review and research conduct in this rapidly evolving field.