A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs). METHODS: We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach. RESULTS: Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically. CONCLUSIONS: There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.

Structured Ethical Review for Wastewater-Based Testing in Support of Public Health.

Wastewater-based testing (WBT) for SARS-CoV-2 has rapidly expanded over the past three years due to its ability to provide a comprehensive measurement of disease prevalence independent of clinical testing. The development and simultaneous application of WBT measured biomarkers for research activities and for the pursuit of public health goals, both areas with well-established ethical frameworks. Currently, WBT practitioners do not employ a standardized ethical review process, introducing the potential for adverse outcomes for WBT professionals and community members. To address this deficiency, an interdisciplinary workshop developed a framework for a structured ethical review of WBT. The workshop employed a consensus approach to create this framework as a set of 11 questions derived from primarily public health guidance. This study retrospectively applied these questions to SARS-CoV-2 monitoring programs covering the emergent phase of the pandemic (3/2020-2/2022 (n = 53)). Of note, 43% of answers highlight a lack of reported information to assess. Therefore, a systematic framework would at a minimum structure the communication of ethical considerations for applications of WBT. Consistent application of an ethical review will also assist in developing a practice of updating approaches and techniques to reflect the concerns held by both those practicing and those being monitored by WBT supported programs.

The reporting of ethical review and ethical considerations in articles published in medical education journals: A literature review.

BACKGROUND: Health professions education research (HPE-R) must be ethically sound. Ethical review decisions and other ethical considerations should be clearly reported in journal articles to allow readers to assess the ethical soundness of the research. We explored and evaluated how ethical review decisions and ethical considerations for HPE-R are reported in health professions education (HPE) journal articles. METHODS: We identified a 1-year sample, for 2020, of eight HPE journals. We systematically assessed the reporting of ethical review and key ethical considerations in the articles in the sample. RESULTS: The search yielded 2004 articles, of which 955 articles (47.7%) were eligible and were thus assessed. Most (83.4%) of the assessed articles mentioned a review by an ethical review board (ERB). In the category 'research articles', 92% articles reported the outcome of the ethical review. In the category 'other articles' (e.g. educational case reports), reporting of ethical processes was less common (32%). Overall, the reporting of key ethical considerations was limited, although these considerations were more reported in 'research articles' compared with 'other articles'. CONCLUSIONS: ERB assessments and HPE-R approval was reported in most research articles. This finding is an improvement compared with previous evaluations of ethical research practice in HPE-R. All studies, particularly those that are exempted or not fully reviewed, should describe their key ethical considerations clearly to enable the HPE community to assess the ethical soundness. Our review revealed that the reporting of ethical considerations was limited and deserves attention from the research community.

Beyond regulatory approaches to ethics: making space for ethical preparedness in healthcare research.

Centralised, compliance-focused approaches to research ethics have been normalised in practice. In this paper, we argue that the dominance of such systems has been driven by neoliberal approaches to governance, where the focus on controlling and individualising risk has led to an overemphasis of decontextualised ethical principles and the conflation of ethical requirements with the documentation of 'informed consent'. Using a UK-based case study, involving a point-of-care-genetic test as an illustration, we argue that rather than ensuring ethical practice such compliance-focused approaches may obstruct valuable research. We call for an approach that encourages researchers and research communities-including regulators, ethics committees, funders and publishers of academic research-to acquire skills to make morally appropriate decisions, and not base decision-making solely on compliance with prescriptive regulations. We call this 'ethical preparedness' and outline how a research ethics system might make space for this approach.

Artificial intelligence and medical research databases: ethical review by data access committees.

BACKGROUND: It has been argued that ethics review committees-e.g., Research Ethics Committees, Institutional Review Boards, etc.- have weaknesses in reviewing big data and artificial intelligence research. For instance, they may, due to the novelty of the area, lack the relevant expertise for judging collective risks and benefits of such research, or they may exempt it from review in instances involving de-identified data. MAIN BODY: Focusing on the example of medical research databases we highlight here ethical issues around de-identified data sharing which motivate the need for review where oversight by ethics committees is weak. Though some argue for ethics committee reform to overcome these weaknesses, it is unclear whether or when that will happen. Hence, we argue that ethical review can be done by data access committees, since they have de facto purview of big data and artificial intelligence projects, relevant technical expertise and governance knowledge, and already take on some functions of ethical review. That said, like ethics committees, they may have functional weaknesses in their review capabilities. To strengthen that function, data access committees must think clearly about the kinds of ethical expertise, both professional and lay, that they draw upon to support their work. CONCLUSION: Data access committees can undertake ethical review of medical research databases provided they enhance that review function through professional and lay ethical expertise.

Preparing ethical review systems for emergencies: next steps.

Ethical review systems need to build on their experiences of COVID-19 research to enhance their preparedness for future pandemics. Recommendations from representatives from over twenty countries include: improving relationships across the research ecosystem; demonstrating willingness to reform and adapt systems and processes; and making the case robustly for better resourcing.

Ethical review of COVID-19 vaccination requirements for transplant center staff and patients.

Transplant centers seeking to increase coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine coverage may consider requiring vaccination for healthcare workers or for candidates. The authors summarize current data to inform an ethical analysis of the harms, benefits, and individual and societal impact of mandatory vaccination, concluding that vaccine requirements for healthcare workers and transplant candidates are ethically justified by beneficence, net utility, and fiduciary duty to patients and public health. Implementation strategies should mitigate concerns about respect for autonomy and transparency for both groups. We clarify how the same arguments might be applied to related questions of caregiver vaccination, allocation of other healthcare resources, and mandates for non-COVID-19 vaccines. Finally, we call for effort to achieve global equity in vaccination as soon as possible.

Boosting ethics review capacity in public health emergency situations: Co-creation of a training model for French-speaking research ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Ethics review preparedness is a major foundation for national effective response to public health emergencies, because it promotes pertinent research and enhances the protection of research participants and communities. In low-income countries, it can also promote equitable research partnership. However, most relevant literature is in English and not easily accessible for the members of research ethics committees in French-speaking African countries. METHODS: A training module in French, addressing the issue of research ethics review during outbreaks and other public health emergencies, was designed based on a non-systematic literature review, and in order to be complementary to the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) national guidelines for ethics review. The module was administered to 42 members of the five ethics committees in DRC that expressed their interest for the training. RESULT: This training, co-designed with local stakeholders, in the local working language and taking into account local circumstances and regulation, provided participants with up-to-date insights of research ethics (and research ethics preparedness) in public health emergencies. It resulted in rich reflection and knowledge-sharing on good practices across the ethics committees. CONCLUSION: As most participating ethics committees do not have yet explicit standard operating procedures for expedited review of protocols submitted in emergency situations, this would be a next important step to facilitate emergency reviews in the most efficient way.

Professional and academic profile of the Brazilian research ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Brazil is among the sixteen countries that conducts the most clinical trials in the world. It has a system to review research ethics with human beings made up by the National Commission on Research Ethics (CONEP) and 779 Research Ethics Committees (RECs), in 2017. The RECs are supposed to follow the same rules regarding their membership, although the RECs that review Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researches must respect Resolution 510/16. There are Brazilian RECs that review SSH and clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the academic professional profile of the members of the CONEP and Brazilian RECs, their adequacy to the norms, and the challenges faced by the REC's Chairs to compose their membership. METHODS: All 779 Brazilian RECs' chairs are invited to fill in a questionnaire informing academic and professional background of the RECs members, and 92 answered. However, eight were excluded for having sent an incomplete questionnaire, leaving a total of 84 participants. The variables were described by absolute and relative frequency. The Chi-square test and ANOVA was used to analyze regional differences related difficulties to compose the committee. The significance level was 95%. RESULTS: The results showed a predominance of members from the biomedical area (57%), while 33% were members of the Social Sciences and Humanities and 5.5% were community representatives. As for the academic degree, there were (45.2%) PhD and (27.9%) masters. The divergences in relation to the guidelines result from the difficulties of having participants in some areas and the little interest in the work carried out by the committees. CONCLUSION: The RECs are partially adequate to the norms and their performance may be compromised by the low participation of community representatives. The organization of REC's specifics to review biomedical research could improve the ethical review process, ensuring a membership more qualified for these protocols.

Establishing the doctor of nursing practice project ethical review process to improve standardization, efficiency, and timeliness.

BACKGROUND: DNP Scholarly projects require review for scientific merit and human subject protection. Rapid growth of DNP programs and projects has increased Institutional Review Board (IRB) burden and increased the length of project approval time when most DNP scholarly projects are quality improvement (QI) projects and not deemed Human Subjects Research (HSR). PURPOSE: Develop a process and describe the rationale for creating and implementing a Project Ethical Review Committee (PERC) in the School of Nursing and to evaluate the experience of the first cohort of submissions. PROCESS: Committee was formed using expert consensus approach, in collaboration with IRB. Standards of Procedures and training materials created. OUTCOME MEASURE: 100 projects submitted to committee; 95 deemed QI (95%) and 5 projects considered HSR (5%). First 94 projects were reviewed, and approval letters sent within 8 weeks. DISCUSSION: This paper discusses how PERC ensures rigorous and ethical review process for standardization, timeliness, and efficiency.

The limits of refusal: An ethical review of solid organ transplantation and vaccine hesitancy.

Patients pursuing solid organ transplantation are encouraged to receive many vaccines on an accelerated timeline. Vaccination prior to transplantation offers the best chance of developing immunity and may expand the pool of donor organs that candidates can accept without needing posttransplant therapy. Furthermore, transplant recipients are at greater risk for acquiring vaccine-preventable illnesses or succumbing to severe sequelae of such illnesses. However, a rising rate of vaccine refusal has challenged transplant centers to address the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy. Transplant centers may need to consider adopting a policy of denial of solid organ transplantation on the basis of vaccine refusal for non-medical reasons (i.e., philosophical or religious objections or personal beliefs that vaccines are unnecessary or unsafe). Arguments supporting such a policy are motivated by utility, stewardship, and beneficence. Arguments opposing such a policy emphasize justice and respect for persons, and seek to avoid worsening inequities or medical coercion. This paper examines these arguments and situates them within the special cases of pediatric transplantation, emergent transplantation, and living donation. Ultimately, a uniform national policy addressing vaccine refusal among transplant candidates is needed to resolve this ethical dilemma and establish a consistent, fair, and standard approach to vaccine refusal in transplantation.

Experiment on identical siblings separated at birth: ethical implications for researchers, universities, and archives today.

Several films, including Three Identical Strangers, examined ethical problems in an experiment that involved identical siblings who were adopted as infants and separated into different families to examine the effects of nature versus nurture. The study was primarily designed and directed by Dr Peter Neubauer. The experiment, conducted in the 1960's through 1980's, serves as an important cautionary case study, raising several critical and ongoing ethical issues faced by researchers, universities and archives today. The organisation coordinating the study donated the research records to Yale University under the condition that they remain sealed until 2065, and has impeded study participants' full access to research material. This case raises questions of what investigators, their descendants, research ethics committees or institutional review boards (IRBs), universities and archives should do with study records when researchers retire or die-whether universities should accept researchers' donations of archival records that may contain patient or participant data, and if so, under what conditions. This study also poses crucial issues for IRBs-for example, whether researchers themselves or their designates should control all access to study records, particularly if controversy or lawsuits ensue. These questions will become increasingly crucial since the amount of research has burgeoned over recent decades, and investigators, on retirement or death, may want to donate their archives to universities. This experiment thus highlights ethical questions to which researchers, IRBs, universities, healthcare institutions, archivists and libraries should attend.

Reporting ethical approval in health and social science articles: an audit of adherence to GDPR and national legislation.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have indicated that failure to report ethical approval is common in health science articles. In social sciences, the occurrence is unknown. The Swedish Ethics Review Act requests that sensitive personal data, in accordance with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), should undergo independent ethical review, irrespective of academic discipline. We have explored the adherence to this regulation. METHODS: Using the Web of Science databases, we reviewed 600 consecutive articles from three domains (health sciences with and without somatic focus and social sciences) based on identifiable personal data published in 2020. RESULTS: Information on ethical review was lacking in 12 of 200 health science articles with somatic focus (6%), 21 of 200 health science articles with non-somatic focus (11%), and in 54 of 200 social science articles (27%; p < 0.001 vs. both groups of health science articles). Failure to report on ethical approval was more common in (a) observational than in interventional studies (p < 0.01), (b) articles with only 1-2 authors (p < 0.001) and (c) health science articles from universities without a medical school (p < 0.001). There was no significant association between journal impact factor and failure to report ethical approval. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that reporting of research ethics approval is reasonably good, but not strict, in health science articles. Failure to report ethical approval is about three times more frequent in social sciences compared to health sciences. Improved adherence seems needed particularly in observational studies, in articles with few authors and in social science research.

Regulatory, scientific, and ethical issues arising from institutional activity in one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees.

BACKGROUND: This paper highlights the issues that one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might encounter during the approval phase of a clinical trial to identify corrective and preventive actions for promoting a more efficient review process and ensuring review quality. Publications on the subject from Italy and the rest of Europe are limited; encouraging constructive debate can improve RECs' service to the subject of the clinical trial. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 822 clinical trial protocols, initially reviewed by REC, from June 2014 to December 2018. Data collected for each protocol were type of trial, sample size, use of placebo, number and kind of revisions requested by the REC before approval, and time taken for approval. Data for each protocol were collected by a trained clinical research assistant using the REC's files and electronic archives. RESULTS: Almost 45% of the reviewed studies (374/822) required clarifications, significant changes to the documentation, or minor changes before final approval. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive measures are needed to reduce the number of requested corrections and thus also the time required for approval, while maintaining review quality. All critical points and proposals presented in this paper require harmonization through updates to European regulations, as regulatory harmonization produces better compliance with rules and reduces the number of changes required before the trials' final approval. Such updates include the development of standardized formats for informed consent, the verification of any evidence in favor of using off-label treatments over placebo as comparators, using multidisciplinary staff in clinical trials with children and adolescents, improving the legal definition of RECs to assign responsibilities and ensure independence, and providing guidance for RECs to engage clinical research assistants in internal audits.

A situation analysis of competences of research ethics committee members regarding review of research protocols with complex and emerging study designs in Uganda.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, Uganda has experienced a significant increase in clinical research driven by both academia and industry. This has been combined with a broader spectrum of research proposals, with respect to methodologies and types of intervention that need evaluation by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) with associated increased requirement for expertise. We assessed the competencies of REC members regarding review of research protocols with complex and emerging research study designs. The aim was to guide development of a training curriculum to improve the quality of scientific and ethical review. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study design, with quantitative data collection methods. Research Ethics Committee members completed a structured pre-coded questionnaire on current competence with complex and emerging study design. REC members were asked to outline a list of additional topics for which they needed training. Data from coded questions were entered into Epidata Version 3.1 and then exported to STATA Version14.1 for analysis. Descriptive analysis was performed and findings are presented using percentages and frequencies. RESULTS: We enrolled 55 REC members from 6 RECs who have a total of 97 members. The majority of whom were males (56.4%, n = 31/55). The level of competence for review of selected study design was lowest for Controlled Human Infection Model (10.9%, n = 6) and reverse pharmacology design (10.9%, n = 6), and highest for cluster randomized study design (52.7%, n = 29) and implementation science research (52.7%, n = 29). CONCLUSION: Competence for review of research protocols with complex and emerging study design was low among participating REC members. We recommend prioritising training of REC members on complex and emerging study designs to enhance quality of research protocol review.

[Consensus on collaborative ethical review of multi-center clinical trials of new drugs of traditional Chinese medicine (version 1.0)].

At present, the issues regarding multi-center clinical trials of new drugs of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) remain: the lack of agreement on the content and scope of the ethical review among the ethics committee members of the center and the participating units results in repeated review, which leads to a time-consuming ethical review process. Moreover, the review capabilities of the ethics committees of various research centers are uneven, which is not necessarily beneficial to the protection of subjects' rights and safety. In view of the existing problems, to improve the efficiency of ethical review of multi-center clinical trials of new drugs of TCM and avoid repeated reviews, the TCM Clinical Evaluation Professional Committee of Chinese Pharmaceutical Association organized experts to formulate the "Consensus on collaborative ethical review of multi-center clinical trials of new drugs of TCM(version 1.0)"(hereinafter referred to as "Consensus"). The "Consensus" is formulated in accordance with the requirements of relevant documents such as but not limited to "the opinions on deepening the reform of the evaluation and approval system to encourage the innovation of pharmaceutical medical devices", "the regulations of ethical review of biomedical research involving human subjects". The "Consensus" covers the scope of application, formulation principles, conditions for the ethics committee of the center, sharing of ethical review resources, scope and procedure of collaborative review, rights and obligations, etc. The aims of the "Consensus" is to preliminarily explore and establish a scientific and operable ethical review procedure. Additionally, on the basis of fully protecting the rights and interests of the subjects, a collaborative ethical review agreement needs to be signed to clarify the ethical review responsibilities of all parties, to avoid repeated review, and to improve the efficiency and quality of ethical review in multi-center clinical trials of new drugs of TCM.

Randomised evaluation of government health programmes does present a challenge to standard research ethics frameworks.

In a recent issue of Journal of Medical Ethics (JME), we discussed the ethical review of evaluations of interventions that would occur whether or not the evaluation was taking place. We concluded that standard research ethics frameworks including the Ottawa Statement, which requires justification for all aspects of an intervention and its roll-out, were a poor guide in this area. We proposed that a consideration of researcher responsibility, based on the consequences of the research taking place, would be a more appropriate way delineate the scope of research ethics review. Weijer and Taljaard present a counterargument to our proposal, which we address in this reply. They claim that a focus on researcher responsibility will weaken the protection of research participants and link it to 'unethical research' and a 'government experimenting on its own people'. However, the moral responsibility of researchers is defined in terms of the consequences of the research on human welfare and harm, not in opposition to it. Weijer and Taljaard argue that researchers must justify what they are studying whether or not they have any control over it and that governments must justify their programmes, including by demonstrating equipoise, to a research ethics committee if they implement them in a randomised way. We strongly disagree that this is a defensible way to define the scope of research ethics review and argue that this provides no further protections to research participants beyond what we propose, but places a potential barrier to learning from government programmes.

Ethical guidelines for deliberately infecting volunteers with COVID-19.

Global fatalities related to COVID-19 are expected to be high in 2020-2021. Developing and delivering a vaccine may be the most likely way to end the pandemic. If it were possible to shorten this development time by weeks or months, this may have a significant effect on reducing deaths. Phase II and phase III trials could take less long to conduct if they used human challenge methods-that is, deliberately infecting participants with COVID-19 following inoculation. This article analyses arguments for and against such methods and provides suggested broad guidelines for regulators, researchers and ethics committees when considering these matters. It concludes that it may be possible to maintain current ethical standards yet still permit human challenge trials in a context where delay is critical. The implications are that regulators and researchers need to work together now to design robust but short trials and streamline ethics approval processes so that they are in place when applications for trials are made.

Misrepresenting "Usual Care" in Research: An Ethical and Scientific Error.

Comparative effectiveness studies, referred to here as "usual-care" trials, seek to compare current medical practices for the same medical condition. Such studies are presumed to be safe and involve only minimal risks. However, that presumption may be flawed if the trial design contains "unusual" care, resulting in potential risks to subjects and inaccurately informed consent. Three case studies described here did not rely on clinical evidence to ascertain contemporaneous practice. As a result, the investigators drew inaccurate conclusions, misinformed research participants, and subjects' safety was compromised. Before approving usual-care protocols, IRBs and scientific review committees should evaluate the quality and completeness of information documenting usual-care practices. Guidance from governmental oversight agencies regarding evidence-based documentation of current clinical practice could prevent similar occurrences in future usual-care trials. Accurate information is necessary to ensure that trials comply with government regulations that require minimizing research risks to subjects and accurate informed consent documents.

Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution.

Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to "bystanders," i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not enrolled as study subjects. Should IRBs expand their scope to include oversight over possible harms to bystanders as well as research subjects? This paper presents arguments against this step. Prior review of research with human subjects, despite its evident burden on the research enterprise, is a necessary caution, because the tension between the objectives of humane treatment of research subjects and sound scientific design and procedure has in the past led to serious abuses. This rationale is inapplicable in the case of bystanders. Moreover, in view of the many and varied effects of both research practices and scientific advances on the broader public over time, those who may be considered to be "bystanders" may potentially expand without limit; requiring IRBs to anticipate these distant and long-term effects as part of prior ethical review could greatly increase its burden and its deterrent effect on research. While conducting research without concern for serious potential harm to bystanders may be irresponsible and unethical, expanding the scope of prior review by IRBs to include risks to bystanders is not required by the principles governing human subjects research, and the costs and burdens of this expansion may outweigh any expected gains.