Evaluating the Impact and Effectiveness of Flint's Community Ethics Review Board (CBOP-CERB): A Pilot Study.

In recognition of the importance of evaluation for funding, research, and quality improvement, a longstanding Community Advisory Board in Flint Michigan embarked on a process to evaluate their impact. The Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)-Community Ethics Review Board (CERB) engaged a research team composed of an academic researcher (Solomon Cargill) and a community partner (Spencer) to obtain funding, design and implement an evaluation of the CBOP-CERB. This evaluation study yielded two evaluations of the CBOP-CERB, one with researchers who had engaged with the CBOP-CERB and the other with Flint area community residents. The results of these two evaluations can serve to show other Community Advisory Boards how to establish and expand their impact, establish their worth for future funding, and how to articulate, evaluate, and achieve their goals.

Challenges and Lessons from Conducting a Community-Engaged Evaluation of a Community Advisory Board-A Case Study from Flint.

Community-engaged research often poses challenges due to exactly those qualities that make it desirable: it provides a new model of research that differs in many ways from top-down, university-led, prospectively designed approaches. While many have discussed the challenges to conducting community-engaged research, few have provided precise and generalizable lessons for how to surmount these challenges. Here we discuss the challenges experienced in a project that was community-engaged at three levels: 1) a research team consisting of an academic and a community partner as well as a community and academic research assistant, 2) the research team engaged with a Community Advisory Board called the CBOP-CERB (Community Based Organization Partners-Community Ethics Research Board) throughout the project, and 3) the research involved recruiting community participants from an area with a historical distrust of researchers and research: Flint Michigan. We also discuss administrative challenges that this multilevel community-engagement posed. Most important, we provide practical lessons in order for future community-engaged research to avoid or mitigate many of these challenges.

Ética en investigación: desafíos durante la pandemia / Research ethics: challenges during the pandemic

Durante la pandemia de Covid-19 los hospitales pediatricos se vieron menos afectados, debido a la menor infección en niños, y sus recursos fueron reasignados en distintas tareas.. El Comité de Ética en Investigación del Hospital General de Niños Pedro de Elizalde presenta los distintos procedimientos implementados en esta emergencia, para sostener diferentes investigaciones, y que les permitió una rápida respuesta a esta situación.

COVID-19, ¿un conflicto ético? / COVID-19, an ethical conflict?

Exposición sobre posibles dilemas éticos ante la pandemia Covid-19 desde los comité de ética en investigación, en relación a la validación de resultados y distribución de diferentes vacunas, y a los criterios objetivos en la toma de decisiones con respecto a las conductas médicas aprobadas y permitidas durante la pandemia; de modo tal de crear un protocolo especial para la utilización de las futuras generaciones en contextos similares.

Investigación en Pandemia: intervenciones del Comité Provincial de Bioética de Santa Fe / Pandemic research: Santa Fe Provincial Committee of Bioethics interventions

Se presenta brevemente la evaluación ética de los protocolos presentados durante la pandemia de Covid-19 al Comité Provincial de Bioética de Santa Fe, organismo que regula las investigaciones con seres humanos en esta provincia, articulando esta tarea con los 24 comités de ética acreditados a nivel provincial. Se describen especialmente dos protocolos que fueron observados y en uno de los casos rechazado por el Comité en base a aspectos éticos.

Key criteria for the ethical acceptability of COVID-19 human challenge studies: Report of a WHO Working Group.

This report of the WHO Working Group for Guidance on Human Challenge Studies in COVID-19 outlines ethical standards for COVID-19 challenge studies. It includes eight Key Criteria related to scientific justification, risk-benefit assessment, consultation and engagement, co-ordination of research, site selection, participant selection, expert review, and informed consent. The document aims to provide comprehensive guidance to scientists, research ethics committees, funders, policymakers, and regulators in deliberations regarding SARS-CoV-2 challenge studies by outlining criteria that would need to be satisfied in order for such studies to be ethically acceptable.

Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?

BACKGROUND: Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are well established at healthcare institutions in resource-rich countries. However, there is limited information on established CECs in resource poor countries, especially in Africa. This study aimed to establish baseline data regarding existing formal CECs in Africa to raise awareness of and to encourage the establishment of CECs or Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CESs) on the continent. METHODS: A descriptive study was undertaken using an online questionnaire via SunSurveys to survey healthcare professionals and bioethicists in Africa. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and Fischer's exact test was applied to determine associations. Texts from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed. RESULTS: In total 109 participants from 37 African countries completed the survey in December 2019. A significant association was found between participants' bioethics qualification or training and involvement in clinical ethics (p = 0.005). All participants were familiar with Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and initially conflated RECs with CECs. When CECs were explained in detail, approximately 85.3% reported that they had no formal CECs in their institutions. The constraints to developing CECs included lack of training, limited resources, and lack of awareness of CECs. However, the majority of participants (81.7%) were interested in establishing CECs. Participants listed assistance required in establishing CECs including funding, resources, capacity building and collaboration with other known CECs. The results do not reflect CECs established since the onset of COVID-19 in Africa. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a first look into CECs in Africa and found very few formal CECs on the continent indicating an urgent need for the establishment of CECs or CESs in Africa. While the majority of healthcare professionals and bioethicists are aware of ethical dilemmas in healthcare, the concept of formal CECs is foreign. This study served to raise awareness of CECs. Research ethics and RECs overshadow CECs in Africa because international funders from the global north support capacity development in research ethics and establish RECs to approve the research they fund in Africa. Raising awareness via educational opportunities, research and conferences about CECs and their role in improving the quality of health care in Africa is sorely needed.

Status of Institutional Review Board Meetings Conducted Through Web Conference Systems in Japanese National University Hospitals During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Questionnaire Study.

BACKGROUND: With the global proliferation of the novel COVID-19 disease, conventionally conducting institutional review board (IRB) meetings has become a difficult task. Amid concerns about the suspension of drug development due to delays within IRBs, it has been suggested that IRB meetings should be temporarily conducted via the internet. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to elucidate the current status of IRB meetings conducted through web conference systems. METHODS: A survey on conducting IRB meetings through web conference systems was administered to Japanese national university hospitals. Respondents were in charge of operating IRB offices at different universities. This study was not a randomized controlled trial. RESULTS: The survey was performed at 42 facilities between the end of May and early June, 2020, immediately after the state of emergency was lifted in Japan. The survey yielded a response rate of 74% (31/42). Additionally, while 68% (21/31) of facilities introduced web conference systems for IRB meetings, 13% (4/31) of the surveyed facilities postponed IRB meetings. Therefore, we conducted a further survey of 21 facilities that implemented web conference systems for IRB meetings. According to 71% (15/21) of the respondents, there was no financial burden for implementing these systems, as they were free of charge. In 90% (19/21) of the facilities, IRB meetings through web conference systems were already being conducted with personal electronic devices. Furthermore, in 48% (10/21) of facilities, a web conference system was used in conjunction with face-to-face meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of reviews in clinical trial core hospitals has decreased. This suggests that the development of pharmaceuticals has stagnated because of COVID-19. According to 71% (15/21) of the respondents who conducted IRB meetings through web conference systems, the cost of introducing such meetings was US $0, showing a negligible financial burden. Moreover, it was shown that online deliberations could be carried out in the same manner as face-to-face meetings, as 86% (18/21) of facilities stated that the number of comments made by board members did not change. To improve the quality of IRB meetings conducted through web conference systems, it is necessary to further examine camera use and the content displayed on members' screens during meetings. Further examination of all members who use web conference systems is required. Our measures for addressing the requests and problems identified in our study could potentially be considered protocols for future IRB meetings, when the COVID-19 pandemic has passed and face-to-face meetings are possible again. This study also highlights the importance of developing web conference systems for IRB meetings to respond to future unforeseen pandemics.

Ethical and Regulatory Concerns in Pragmatic Clinical Trial Monitoring and Oversight.

The implementation of pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) can be accompanied by unique regulatory challenges. In this paper, we describe the experience and management of regulatory noncompliance during a 25-site acute care PCT. During the trial, the study team conducted a comprehensive audit of all enrollment forms (informed consent and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act authorization forms) and related study documentation. A review of 997 participants' enrollment forms identified 138 (13.8%) that required reporting to the institutional review board due to noncompliance. To prevent subsequent noncompliance, the study team developed and introduced a revised participant tracking system, reviewed all enrollment documentation, and retrained sites regarding study procedures. Based on these experiences, we developed a set of recommendations for future PCTs to ensure both operational success and regulatory compliance.

Leveraging Interdisciplinary Teams to Develop and Implement Secure Websites for Behavioral Research: Applied Tutorial.

Behavioral researchers are increasingly using interactive digital platforms, either as standalone or supplementary intervention tools, to facilitate positive changes in research participants' health habits. Research-oriented interactive websites optimally offer a variety of participatory mediums, such as blogs, user-driven content, or health activities. Owing to the multidirectional features of interactive websites, and a corresponding need to protect research participants' identity and data, it is paramount that researchers design ethical platforms that ensure privacy and minimize loss of anonymity and confidentiality. Authentication (ie, digital verification of one's identity) of interactive sites is one viable solution to these concerns. Although previous publications have addressed ethical requirements related to authenticated platforms, few applied guidelines in the literature facilitate adherence to ethical principles and legally compliant study protocols during all phases of research website creation (feasibility, design, implementation, and maintenance). Notably, to remain compliant with ethical standards and study protocols, behavioral researchers must collaborate with interdisciplinary teams to ensure that the authenticated site remains secure and usable in all stages of the project. In this tutorial, we present a case study conducted at a large research university. Through iterative and practical recommendations, we detail lessons learned from collaborations with the Institutional Review Board, legal experts, and information technology teams. Although the intricacies of our applied tutorial may require adaptations based on each institution's technological capacity, we are confident that the core takeaways are universal and thus useful to behavioral researchers creating ethically responsible and compliant interactive websites.

Challenges and strategies to research ethics in conducting COVID-19 research.

The number of research involving human subjects on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is surging, bringing challenges to the ethical review committee (ERC) in terms of reviewing speed and special ethical considerations under the pandemic. However, the existing ethical review system and regulations have their limitations to meet the demand for a prompt and efficient epidemic control. Since the research under the public health emergency is different from that carried out in familiar situations to design and implementation, the strategy for a satisfactory ERC response should balance the duty of protecting individual participants as well as the special public needs derived from the disease control. It is suggested that the ethical review-related regulations need to be updated, and a unified supervision system to the overall ERC is required. ERC collaboration, capacity-improving and efficiency-improving measures need to be taken. With respect to the reviewing guidelines, it is suggested that the international norms should be explained with more consideration of the local condition and the exceptional circumstances in this public health emergency. A joint effort needs to be taken for better research conduction.

Challenges and Best Practices in Ethical Review of Human and Organizational Factors Studies in Health Technology: a Synthesis of Testimonies.

OBJECTIVE: Human and Organizational Factors (HOF) studies in health technology involve human beings and thus require Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval. Yet HOF studies have specific constraints and methods that may not fit standard regulations and IRB practices. Gaining IRB approval may pose difficulties for HOF researchers. This paper aims to provide a first overview of HOF study challenges to get IRB review by exploring differences and best practices across different countries. METHODS: HOF researchers were contacted by email to provide a testimony about their experience with IRB review and approval. Testimonies were thematically analyzed and synthesized to identify and discuss shared themes. RESULTS: Researchers from seven European countries, Argentina, Canada, Australia, and the United States answered the call. Four themes emerged that indicate shared challenges in legislation, IRB inefficiencies and inconsistencies, general regulation and costs, and lack of HOF study knowledge by IRB members. We propose a model for IRB review of HOF studies based on best practices. CONCLUSION: International criteria are needed that define low and high-risk HOF studies, to allow identification of studies that can undergo an expedited (or exempted) process from those that need full IRB review. Enhancing IRB processes in such a way would be beneficial to the conduct of HOF studies. Greater knowledge and promotion of HOF methods and evidence-based HOF study designs may support the evolving discipline. Based on these insights, training and guidance to IRB members may be developed to support them in ensuring that appropriate ethical issues for HOF studies are considered.

Data Access Committees.

BACKGROUND: Sharing de-identified individual-level health research data is widely promoted and has many potential benefits. However there are also some potential harms, such as misuse of data and breach of participant confidentiality. One way to promote the benefits of sharing while ameliorating its potential harms is through the adoption of a managed access approach where data requests are channeled through a Data Access Committee (DAC), rather than making data openly available without restrictions. A DAC, whether a formal or informal group of individuals, has the responsibility of reviewing and assessing data access requests. Many individual groups, consortiums, institutional and independent DACs have been established but there is currently no widely accepted framework for their organization and function. MAIN TEXT: We propose that DACs, should have the role of both promotion of data sharing and protection of data subjects, their communities, data producers, their institutions and the scientific enterprise. We suggest that data access should be granted by DACs as long as the data reuse has potential social value and provided there is low risk of foreseeable harms. To promote data sharing and to motivate data producers, DACs should encourage secondary uses that are consistent with the interests of data producers and their own institutions. Given the suggested roles of DACs, there should be transparent, simple and clear application procedures for data access. The approach to review of applications should be proportionate to the potential risks involved. DACs should be established within institutional and legal frameworks with clear lines of accountability, terms of reference and membership. We suggest that DACs should not be modelled after research ethics committees (RECs) because their functions and goals of review are different from those of RECs. DAC reviews should be guided by the principles of public health ethics instead of research ethics. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper we have suggested a framework under which DACs should operate, how they should be organised, and how to constitute them.

Exempting low-risk health and medical research from ethics reviews: comparing Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Disproportionate regulation of health and medical research contributes to research waste. Better understanding of exemptions of research from ethics review in different jurisdictions may help to guide modification of review processes and reduce research waste. Our aim was to identify examples of low-risk human health and medical research exempt from ethics reviews in Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Netherlands. METHODS: We examined documents providing national guidance on research ethics in each country, including those authored by the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), National Health Service (United Kingdom), the Office for Human Research Protections (United States) and the Central Committee on Research Involving Humans (the Netherlands). Examples and types of research projects exempt from ethics reviews were identified, and similar examples and types were grouped together. RESULTS: Nine categories of research were exempt from ethics reviews across the four countries; these were existing data or specimen, questionnaire or survey, interview, post-marketing study, evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, audit and service evaluation, and other exemptions. Existing non-identifiable data and specimens were exempt in all countries. Four categories - evaluation of public benefit or service programme, randomised controlled trials, research with staff in their professional role, and audit and service evaluation - were exempted by one country each. The remaining categories were exempted by two or three countries. CONCLUSIONS: Examples and types of research exempt from research ethics reviews varied considerably. Given the considerable costs and burdens on researchers and ethics committees, it would be worthwhile to develop and provide clearer guidance on exemptions, illustrated with examples, with transparent underpinning rationales.

When IRBs Say No to Participating in Research about Single IRBs.

In response to a policy of the National Institutes of Health and requirements in the revised Common Rule, a protocol for a multisite study must be reviewed by a single institutional review board (IRB), rather than by the IRB at each study site. The goal of the single IRB approach is to increase the efficiency of IRB review of multisite research without jeopardizing protections for research subjects. Yet the extent to which these joint goals are being achieved is unclear. To better understand how single IRBs function, we recruited academic, government, and commercial single IRBs (N = 49) to participate in a study involving observation of protocol review meetings and/or interviews with their members, chairs, and administrators. Twenty (40.8%) agreed to participate, of which 50% agreed to both interviews and observation. While 81.8% (9/11) of academic and 50% (4/8) of government single IRBs participated in some way, only 23.3% (7/30) of commercial single IRBs did so. The four largest commercial single IRBs declined to participate. Because evaluation of single IRBs is important to inform development, implementation, monitoring, and refinement of federal policies, single IRBs should be encouraged to participate in research that examines how they function.