Assessment of Consent Comprehension Among Kenyan Adolescents, Young Adults, and Parents: Comparison of Enhanced and Standard Consenting Procedures.

PURPOSE: Youth aged 15-19 years and parents of minors aged 15-17 years in sub-Saharan Africa are under-represented in empirical consent research. Thus, knowledge is limited concerning the adequacy of consent procedures and need for strategies to improve consent comprehension among these groups. We assessed comprehension following standard consent procedures and evaluated an enhanced procedure among Kenyan youth and parents. METHODS: Participants were adolescents aged 15-17 years (n = 273), their parents (n = 196), and young adults aged 18-19 years (n = 196). We used a quasi-experimental cohort design to implement standard and enhanced (single condition: extended discussion, test/feedback) consent procedures. Participants completed a 21-item informed consent comprehension assessment instrument. RESULTS: After standard consent procedures, mean comprehension scores were 11.36, 13.64, and 13.43 (score range: 0-21) among adolescents, young adults, and parents, respectively. About 6.2% of adolescents, 19.6% of young adults, and 21.4% of parents answered ≥ 80% of the questions correctly. After the enhanced procedures, comprehension scores (15.87 adolescents, 17.81 young adults, and 16.77 parents) and proportions answering ≥ 80% of the questions correctly (44.9% adolescents, 76.8% young adults, and 64.3% parents) increased significantly. Regression analysis indicated statistically significant differences (p < .001) in comprehension scores between the enhanced and standard groups (ß = 3.87 adolescents, ß = 4.03 young adults, and ß = 3.60 parents) after controlling for sociodemographic factors. DISCUSSION: Enhancing consent procedures with extended discussions, quizzes, and additional explanation where understanding is inadequate is a promising approach for improving comprehension. However, poorer comprehension among adolescents compared to young adults and parents underscores the need for research to identify additional approaches to improve understanding.

Ethics and regulatory complexities posed by a pragmatic clinical trial: a case study from Lilongwe, Malawi.

Background: Pragmatic clinical trials generally rely on real world data and have the potential to generate real world evidence. This approach arose from concerns that many trial results did not adequately inform real world practice. However, maintaining the real world setting during the conduct of a trial and ensuring adequate protection for research participants can be challenging. Best practices in research oversight for pragmatic clinical trials are nascent and underdeveloped, especially in developing countries. Methods: We use the PRECIS-2 tool to present a case study from Lilongwe in Malawi to describe ethical and regulatory challenges encountered during the conduct of a pragmatic trial and suggest possible solutions. Results: In this article, we highlight the following six issues: (1) one public facility hosting several pragmatic trials within the same period; (2) research participants refusing financial incentives; (3) inadequate infrastructure and high workload to conduct research; (4) silos among partner organisations involved in delivery of health care; (5) individuals influencing the implementation of revised national guidelines; (6) difficulties with access to electronic medical records. Conclusion: Multiple stakeholder engagement is critical to the conduct of pragmatic trials, and even with careful stakeholder engagement, continuous monitoring by gatekeepers is essential. In the Malawian context, active engagement of the district research committees can complement the work of the research ethics committees (RECs).

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.

Allocation of scarce resources in Africa during COVID-19: Utility and justice for the bottom of the pyramid?

The COVID-19 pandemic has raised important universal public health challenges. Conceiving ethical responses to these challenges is a public health imperative but must take context into account. This is particularly important in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). In this paper, we examine how some of the ethical recommendations offered so far in high-income countries might appear from a SSA perspective. We also reflect on some of the key ethical challenges raised by the COVID-19 pandemic in low-income countries suffering from chronic shortages in health care resources, and chronic high morbidity and mortality from non-COVID-19 causes. A parallel is drawn between the distribution of severity of COVID-19 disease and the classic "Fortune at the bottom of the pyramid" model that is relevant in SSA. Focusing allocation of resources during COVID-19 on the 'thick' part of the pyramid in Low-to-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) could be ethically justified on utilitarian and social justice grounds, since it prioritizes a large number of persons who have been economically and socially marginalized. During the pandemic, importing allocation frameworks focused on the apex of the pyramid from the global north may therefore not always be appropriate. In a post-COVID-19 world, we need to think strategically about how health care systems can be financed and structured to ensure broad access to adequate health care for all who need it. The root problems underlying health inequity, exposed by COVID-19, must be addressed, not just to prepare for the next pandemic, but to care for people in resource poor settings in non-pandemic times.

What Could "Fair Allocation" during the Covid-19 Crisis Possibly Mean in Sub-Saharan Africa?

The Covid-19 pandemic has sparked rapid and voluminous production of bioethics commentary in popular media and academic publications. Many of the discussions are new twists on an old theme: how to fairly allocate scarce medical resources, such as ventilators and intensive care unit beds. In this essay, we do not add another allocation scheme to the growing pile, partly out of appreciation that such schemes should be products of inclusive and transparent community engagement and partly out of recognition of their limited utility for physicians working in the field. Instead, we make the more modest claim that context matters when making such decisions and, more specifically, that recommendations from high-income countries about fair allocation during Covid-19 should not be cut and pasted into low-income settings. We offer a few examples of why seemingly universal, well-intentioned ethical recommendations could have adverse consequences if unreflectively applied in sub-Saharan Africa.

Addressing Ethical Challenges in US-Based HIV Phylogenetic Research.

In recent years, phylogenetic analysis of HIV sequence data has been used in research studies to investigate transmission patterns between individuals and groups, including analysis of data from HIV prevention clinical trials, in molecular epidemiology, and in public health surveillance programs. Phylogenetic analysis can provide valuable information to inform HIV prevention efforts, but it also has risks, including stigma and marginalization of groups, or potential identification of HIV transmission between individuals. In response to these concerns, an interdisciplinary working group was assembled to address ethical challenges in US-based HIV phylogenetic research. The working group developed recommendations regarding (1) study design; (2) data security, access, and sharing; (3) legal issues; (4) community engagement; and (5) communication and dissemination. The working group also identified areas for future research and scholarship to promote ethical conduct of HIV phylogenetic research.

The Role of Inclusion Benefits in Ethics Committee Assessment of Research Studies.

The relationship between risks and benefits is central to the ethics of research involving human participants. Traditionally, to be ethically justifiable, risks should be reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits (if any) to subjects and to the potential social benefits resulting from research. This calculus is being further complicated by findings from an increasing number of social science studies that reveal that prospective and actual research participants frequently describe various types of inclusion benefits (for example, personal benefits such as access to or improved health care, increased knowledge about their disease or condition, and greater solidarity with the local community) as important to them. What is the ethical significance of such inclusion benefits, particularly those nonmedical in nature, for research ethics committees' risk-benefit assessment of research studies? We argue that, unless participants are clearly mistaken in their perceptions, ethics committees should take these types of inclusion benefits into account, and we suggest a few ways this might look in practice.

Convergence Despite Divergence: Views of Academic and Community Stakeholders about the Ethics of Community-Engaged Research.

Purpose: Stakeholder engagement and community-engaged research (CEnR) are recognized as approaches necessary to promote health equity. Few studies have examined variations in stakeholder perspectives on research ethics despite the potential for meaningful differences. Our study examines the association between stakeholders' characteristics and their perception of the importance of 15 stakeholder-developed CEnR ethical statements. Design: Quantitative analysis of close-ended Delphi survey. Participants: We recruited a national, non-random, purposive sample of people who were eligible if they endorsed conducting CEnR in public health or biomedical fields. Participants were recruited from publicly available information, professional email distributions, and snowball sampling. Main Outcome Measures: We designed our close-ended Delphi survey from the results of 15 CEnR ethical statements, which were developed from a consensus development workshop with academic and community stakeholders. Results: 259 participants completed the Delphi survey. The results demonstrated that stakeholders' characteristics (affiliation, ethnicity, number of CEnR relationships, and duration of CEnR partnerships) were not associated with their perception of the importance of 15 ethical statements. Conclusions: The strong agreement among stakeholders on these broad, aspirational ethical statements can help guide partnerships toward ethical decisions and actions. Continued research about variability among stakeholders' ethics perspectives is needed to bolster the capacity of CEnR to contribute to health equity.

Stakeholder-driven, consensus development methods to design an ethical framework and guidelines for engaged research.

Increasingly, researchers seek to engage communities, patients, and stakeholders as partners in the process and products of health research. However, there is no existing stakeholder-driven ethical framework for such engaged scholarship. We employed an iterative, stakeholder-engaged method to develop a data-driven framework for the ethical review and conduct of engaged scholarship. We used consensus development conference methods and a modified Delphi survey to engage 240 community members, ethicists, and academic researchers. This multi-staged process produced a framework with 4 domains: vision of equitable and just research, relationship dynamics, community-informed risk/benefits assessment, and accountability. Within the framework, 4 cross-cutting considerations and 15 statements explicate the stakeholders' priorities for the ethical review and conduct of engaged scholarship. Though the findings are promising, the study is limited in that it focuses on stakeholder perspectives, but does not actually evaluate or apply the findings in the field. The stakeholder-engaged framework provides a platform for further articulation of ethical practices and policy for engaged scholarship.

Where Is the Community Dimension in the Updated Common Rule?

THE PROBLEM: Changes to the Federal Policy for the Pro tection of Human Subjects (the Common Rule) as presented in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) are both logical and necessary. However, the proposed changes con tinue to focus entirely on the individual and fail to take into account the rapidlyemerging types of research that involve patients and communities directly in the research process.Purpose of Article: We propose several changes and amendments that address the interests of communities and underscore the principle of justice, especially social justice. KEY POINTS: Our recommendations seek to revise human subjects' protections that currently overemphasize individualism and autonomy to reflect a collectivist ethos that would extend protections to communities engaged in medical research. CONCLUSION: We believe this is necessary to effectively and efficiently conduct the types of research that will ultimately rectify health inequities that continue to exist in many communities, but particularly communities of color.

Perceptions of Equipoise, Risk-Benefit Ratios, and "Otherwise Healthy Volunteers" in the Context of Early-Phase HIV Cure Research in the United States: A Qualitative Inquiry.

Early-phase HIV cure research is conducted against a background of highly effective antiretroviral therapy, and involves risky interventions in individuals who enjoy an almost normal life expectancy. To explore perceptions of three ethical topics in the context of HIV cure research-(a) equipoise, (b) risk-benefit ratios, and (c) "otherwise healthy volunteers"-we conducted 36 in-depth interviews (IDIs) with three groups of purposively selected key informants: clinician-researchers ( n = 11), policy-makers and bioethicists ( n = 13), and people living with HIV (PLWHIV; n = 12). Our analysis revealed variability in perceptions of equipoise. Second, most key informants believed there was no clear measure of risk-benefit ratios in HIV cure research, due in part to the complexity of weighing (sometimes unknown) risks to participants and (sometimes speculative) benefits to science and society. Third, most clinician-researchers and policy-makers/bioethicists viewed potential HIV cure study participants as "otherwise healthy volunteers," but this perception was not shared among PLWHIV in our study.

Ethics of treatment interruption trials in HIV cure research: addressing the conundrum of risk/benefit assessment.

Though antiretroviral therapy is the standard of care for people living with HIV, its treatment limitations, burdens, stigma and costs lead to continued interest in HIV cure research. Early-phase cure trials, particularly those that include analytic treatment interruption (ATI), involve uncertain and potentially high risk, with minimal chance of clinical benefit. Some question whether such trials should be offered, given the risk/benefit imbalance, and whether those who choose to participate are acting rationally. We address these questions through a longitudinal decision-making study nested in a Thai acute HIV research cohort.In-depth interviews revealed central themes about decisions to join. Participants felt they possessed an important identity as members of the acute cohort, viewing their bodies as uniquely suited to both testing and potentially benefiting from HIV cure approaches. While acknowledging risks of ATI, most perceived they were given an opportunity to interrupt treatment, to test their own bodies and increase normalcy in a safe, highly monitored circumstance. They were motivated by potential benefits to themselves, the investigators and larger acute cohort, and others with HIV. They believed their own trial experiences and being able to give back to the community were sufficient to offset participation risks.These decisions were driven by the specific circumstances experienced by our participants. Judging risk/benefit ratios without appreciating these lived experiences can lead to false determinations of irrational decision- making. While this does not minimise vital oversight considerations about risk reduction and protection from harm, it argues for inclusion of a more participant-centered approach.

Research on HIV cure: Mapping the ethics landscape.

In an essay, Karine Dubé and coauthors discuss the ethics of preclinical and clinical studies relevant to achieving an HIV cure.

Hidden costs: The ethics of cost-effectiveness analyses for health interventions in resource-limited settings.

Cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) is an increasingly appealing tool for evaluating and comparing health-related interventions in resource-limited settings. The goal is to inform decision-makers regarding the health benefits and associated costs of alternative interventions, helping guide allocation of limited resources by prioritising interventions that offer the most health for the least money. Although only one component of a more complex decision-making process, CEAs influence the distribution of health-care resources, directly influencing morbidity and mortality for the world's most vulnerable populations. However, CEA-associated measures are frequently setting-specific valuations, and CEA outcomes may violate ethical principles of equity and distributive justice. We examine the assumptions and analytical tools used in CEAs that may conflict with societal values. We then evaluate contextual features unique to resource-limited settings, including the source of health-state utilities and disability weights, implications of CEA thresholds in light of economic uncertainty, and the role of external donors. Finally, we explore opportunities to help align interpretation of CEA outcomes with values and budgetary constraints in resource-limited settings. The ethical implications of CEAs in resource-limited settings are vast. It is imperative that CEA outcome summary measures and implementation thresholds adequately reflect societal values and ethical priorities in resource-limited settings.

Appropriateness of no-fault compensation for research-related injuries from an African perspective: an appeal for action by African countries.

Compensation for research-related injuries (RRIs) remains a challenge in the current environment of global collaborative biomedical research as exemplified by the continued reluctance of the US government, a major player in international biomedical research, to enact regulation for mandatory compensation for RRIs. This stance is in stark contrast to the mandatory compensation policies adopted by other democracies like the European Union (EU) countries. These positions taken by the USA and the EU create a nexus of confusion when research is exported to low-income and middle-income countries which have no laws guiding compensation for RRIs. In this paper, we begin by exploring the background to policies concerning RRIs, how they reflect on the traditional dispute resolution mechanisms in African societies, and how this compares with the no-fault compensation model. We then explore the underlying African ethical framework of Ubuntu in the sub-Saharan region, guiding traditional practices of dispute resolution and compensation, and how this framework can help to form the moral justification for no-fault compensation as the preferred compensation model for RRIs for African countries. Finally, we call upon countries in the African Union (AU), to adopt a no-fault policy for compensation of RRIs, and enact it into a regulatory requirement for insurance-based no-fault compensation for biomedical research, which will then be enforced by member states of the AU.

Women in HIV cure research: multilevel interventions to improve sex equity in recruitment.

Women are underrepresented in HIV cure research. In this paper we discuss the rationale for including women and propose multilevel strategies to improve sex equity in HIV cure research. The inadequate inclusion of women in HIV cure research is concerning for both scientific and ethical reasons. Biological responses to HIV and HIV treatment, as well as social contexts, differ between men and women, and this may affect the efficacy of curative interventions. Strategies for improving sex equity in HIV cure research include addressing eligibility criteria, adapting recruitment strategies, engaging community members early in the research process, and promoting funder policy changes. We conclude by describing the Gender, Race, and Clinical Experience (GRACE) study, which is one example of how women can be effectively recruited into HIV-related clinical trials. While HIV cure research is currently in the early stages, as it continues to develop it is important to mobilise for adequate inclusion of women.

Perceptions of voluntary medical male circumcision among circumcising and non-circumcising communities in Malawi.

Three randomised controlled trials in Africa indicated that voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC) is an effective method to reduce a man's risk of becoming infected through sex with an HIV-positive female partner. The success of recent public health initiatives to increase numbers of circumcised men in Malawi has been very limited. We conducted in-depth interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs) with men, women and male adolescents from non-circumcising and circumcising communities in southern Malawi to better understand their beliefs about male circumcision and the promotion of VMMC for HIV prevention. Results revealed that beliefs about male circumcision, in general, are strongly mediated by Malawian culture and history. Participants have attempted to develop a new meaning for circumcision in light of the threat of HIV infection and the publicised risk reduction benefits of VMMC. Several study participants found it difficult to distinguish VMMC from traditional circumcision practices (jando and lupanda), despite awareness that the new form of circumcision was an expression of (western) modern medicine performed largely for public health purposes. Greater recognition of background cultural beliefs and practices could inform future efforts to promote medical male circumcision as an HIV prevention strategy in this context.

Ethical use of antiretroviral resources for HIV prevention in resource poor settings.

The effectiveness of antiretroviral regimes (ARVs) to reduce risk of HIV transmission from mother to child and as post-exposure prophylaxis has been known for almost two decades. Recent research indicates ARVs can also reduce the risk of HIV transmission via sexual intercourse in two other ways. With pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), ARVs are used to reduce risk of HIV acquisition among persons who are HIV negative and significantly exposed to the virus. With treatment as prevention (TasP), ARVs are used to reduce risk of HIV transmission from persons who are already HIV positive. The development of these new prevention strategies raises a rationing problem: given the chronic shortage of ARVs for HIV-infected persons in need of treatment, is it ethically justified to allocate ARVs for PrEP and/or TasP? This article examines the intuitively appealing view that allocation of ARVs for treatment should be the highest priority, the use of ARVs for TasP should be a secondary priority, and that utilizing ARVs for PrEP would be unethical. I will argue that selective, evidence-based allocation of ARVs for prevention in certain cases could be ethically justified even when there is insufficient anti-retroviral access for all those needing it for treatment.

Engaging with research ethics in central Francophone Africa: reflections on a workshop about ancillary care.

Research ethics is predominantly taught and practiced in Anglophone countries, particularly those in North America and Western Europe. Initiatives to build research ethics capacity in developing countries must attempt to avoid imposing foreign frameworks and engage with ethical issues in research that are locally relevant. This article describes the process and outcomes of a capacity-building workshop that took place in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo in the summer of 2011. Although the workshop focused on a specific ethical theme - the responsibilities of researchers to provide health-related care to their research participants - we argue that the structure of the workshop offers a useful method for engaging with research ethics in general, and the theme of ancillary care encourages a broad perspective on research ethics that is highly pertinent in low-income countries. The workshop follows an interactive, locally driven model that could be fruitfully replicated in similar settings.