Polymedia Literacy and Other Ethical Considerations for Online Ethnographic Research on Social Networking Sites.

Drawing on the authors' own ethnographic research, this article discusses the importance of developing polymedia literacy as a key step toward ethical online research on social networking sites (SNS). Polymedia literacy entails the ability to critically analyze the vast landscape of SNS, their affordances, and users' social motivations for choosing specific SNS for their interactions. Internet researchers face several ethical challenges, including issues of informed consent, "public" and "private" online spaces, and data protection. Even when research ethics committees waive the need for a formal ethics approval process, researchers of online spaces need to ensure that their studies are conducted and presented in an ethical and responsible manner. This is particularly important in research contexts that pertain to vulnerable populations in online communities.

A transformative solution to build effective, transparent, and resilient "fit-for-purpose" national health research ethics systems.

The current research ethics review systems are composed of isolated institutional Research Ethics Committees (RECs) that develop their own standard operating procedures (SOPs), templates and so on, with low adoption of digital solutions to manage submission and review processes. This poses several challenges, such as delays, higher costs, and hindering multi-site research. We propose an online national research ethics platform that all RECs can use, with common review processes and documentation requirements following national policy. The system will scale up adoption of digital solutions to all RECs. It will reduce administrative burden and harmonize review procedures. It will also obviate the need for separate and isolated interventions such as national REC registries or clinical trial registries, as these can be generated as transactional outputs of the system. The harmonized procedures and possibility of single submission will facilitate multi-site research. Sharing of resources and expertise among RECs on the platform will enhance resilience. An e-EC system developed in India and a Regional Health research portal developed by the WHO South-East Asia office offer proof of concepts to demonstrate the feasibility of developing and using such systems. The proposed solution is ambitious but feasible. Developing the proposed system will be a vital cost-effective investment in national health infrastructure to strengthen the research ecosystem and accelerate delivery of improved healthcare innovations by reducing unnecessary delays in conducting research. To maximize benefits, concurrent efforts are needed to build researchers' capacity and enhance the quality and efficiency of human reviews of the research proposals by REC.

Current Status and Issues of Ethical Review for Surgical Research in Japanese University Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: In clinical research, ethical review is required prior to conducting the research. A surgical procedure is a complex intervention with properties that make it more difficult to evaluate rigorously and monitor than drug treatments. This study aimed to clarify the current status and issues in the ethical review and monitoring of surgical research. METHODS: We developed a self-administered questionnaire on surgical ethical review. The questionnaire was distributed to university hospitals in Japan and collected from November 2018 to February 2019. The distributed questionnaire consisted of the reviewed items, items with difficulties, and important items on ethical review. Fisher's exact test or the chi-square test was used for analysis. RESULTS: The questionnaires from 39 medical university hospitals were completed with appropriate answers to all items. "Technical review" was conducted at a significantly lower proportion (n = 30/39, 76.9%, p = 0.002). "Evaluation of the progress and results" was also (n = 22/39, 56.4%, p < 0.001). University hospitals in which "technical aspects and ethical review" was regarded the most important and difficult were higher (n = 24/39, 61.5%; n = 26/39, 66.7%, respectively). Respondents considered not only items written in the study protocol but also those on monitoring or oversight of surgical research as difficult. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is necessary to improve the ethical review system and provide supports to conduct an appropriate review for surgical research, e.g., technical aspect review or study progress/result evaluation.

A call for a streamlined ethics review process for multijurisdictional, child health research studies.

To be time and resource efficient in neonatal research and to answer clinically relevant questions with validity and generalizability, large numbers of infants from multiple hospitals need to be included. Multijurisdictional research in Canada is currently fraught with research ethics review process hurdles that lead to delays, administrative costs, and possibly termination of projects. We describe our experience applying for ethics review to 13 sites in 7 provinces for a project comparing two standard of care therapies for preterm born infants with respiratory distress syndrome. We welcome the current opportunity created by the Institute of Human Development Child and Youth Health and the Institute for Genetics, to collaboratively identify practical solutions that would benefit Canadian researchers, Research Ethics Boards, and children and families.

Study bystanders and ethical treatment of study participants-A proof of concept.

The ethics of research on human subjects is often construed as a fine balance between the interests of patients in need of novel health interventions, and those of study participants who should remain safe in the process. But there is a third group in the mix. Some people belong to neither category, yet research can affect or jeopardize them. Call such people "bystanders." This article shows that thinking about bystander protection can question whether there is an upper limit on the risks that studies may legitimately visit upon their participants. Thus, thinking about appropriate bystander protection can shed light on the appropriate protection of study participants. Core research ethics, which focuses on the latter, must consider the former as well.

Evaluating the Quality of Research Ethics Review and Oversight: A Systematic Analysis of Quality Assessment Instruments.

BACKGROUND: Research ethics review committees (RERCs) and Human Research Protection Programs (HRPPs) are responsible for protecting the rights and welfare of research participants while avoiding unnecessary inhibition of valuable research. Evaluating RERC/HRPP quality is vital to determining whether they are achieving these goals effectively and efficiently, as well as what adjustments might be necessary. Various tools, standards, and accreditation mechanisms have been developed in the United States and internationally to measure and promote RERC/HRPP quality. METHODS: We systematically reviewed 10 quality assessment instruments, examining their overall approaches, factors considered relevant to quality, how they compare to each other, and what they leave out. For each tool, we counted the number of times each of 34 topics (divided into structure, process, and outcome categories) was mentioned. We generated lists of which topics are most and least mentioned for each tool, which are most prevalent across tools, and which are left unmentioned. We also conducted content analysis for the 10 most common topics. RESULTS: We found wide variability between instruments, common emphasis on process and structure with little attention to participant outcomes, and failure to identify clear priorities for assessment. The most frequently mentioned topics are Review Type, IRB Member Expertise, Training and Educational Resources, Protocol Maintenance, Record Keeping, and Mission, Approach, and Culture. Participant Outcomes is unmentioned in 8 tools; the remaining 2 tools include assessments based on adverse events, failures of informed consent, and consideration of participant experiences. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis confirms that RERC/HRPP quality assessment instruments largely rely on surrogate measures of participant protection. To prioritize between these measures and preserve limited resources for evaluating the most important criteria, we recommend that instruments focus on elements relevant to participant outcomes, robust board deliberation, and procedures most likely to address participant risks. Validation of these approaches remains an essential next step.

Cluster over individual randomization: are study design choices appropriately justified? Review of a random sample of trials.

BACKGROUND: Novel rationales for randomizing clusters rather than individuals appear to be emerging from the push for more pragmatic trials, for example, to facilitate trial recruitment, reduce the costs of research, and improve external validity. Such rationales may be driven by a mistaken perception that choosing cluster randomization lessens the need for informed consent. We reviewed a random sample of published cluster randomized trials involving only individual-level health care interventions to determine (a) the prevalence of reporting a rationale for the choice of cluster randomization; (b) the types of explicit, or if absent, apparent rationales for the use of cluster randomization; (c) the prevalence of reporting patient informed consent for study interventions; and (d) the types of justifications provided for waivers of consent. We considered cluster randomized trials for evaluating exclusively the individual-level health care interventions to focus on clinical trials where individual randomization is only theoretically possible and where there is a general expectation of informed consent. METHODS: A random sample of 40 cluster randomized trials were identified by implementing a validated electronic search filter in two electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Embase), with two reviewers independently extracting information from each trial. Inclusion criteria were the following: primary report of a cluster randomized trial, evaluating exclusively an individual-level health care intervention, published between 2007 and 2016, and conducted in Canada, the United States, European Union, Australia, or low- and middle-income country settings. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials (62.5%, 95% confidence interval = 47.5%-77.5%) reported an explicit rationale for the use of cluster randomization. The most commonly reported rationales were those with logistical or administrative convenience (15 trials, 60%) and those that need to avoid contamination (13 trials, 52%); five trials (20%) were cited rationales related to the push for more pragmatic trials. Twenty-one trials (52.5%, 95% confidence interval = 37%-68%) reported written informed consent for the intervention, two (5%) reported verbal consent, and eight (20%) reported waivers of consent, while in nine trials (22.5%) consent was unclear or not mentioned. Reported justifications for waivers of consent included that study interventions were already used in clinical practice, patients were not randomized individually, and the need to facilitate the pragmatic nature of the trial. Only one trial reported an explicit and appropriate justification for waiver of consent based on minimum criteria in international research ethics guidelines, namely, infeasibility and minimal risk. CONCLUSION: Rationales for adopting cluster over individual randomization and for adopting consent waivers are emerging, related to the need to facilitate pragmatic trials. Greater attention to clear reporting of study design rationales, informed consent procedures, as well as justification for waivers is needed to ensure that such trials meet appropriate ethical standards.

Research ethics review at University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM)/Maputo Central Hospital, Mozambique (2013-2016): a descriptive analysis of the start-up of a new research ethics committee (REC).

BACKGROUND: Mozambique has seen remarkable growth in biomedical research over the last decade. To meet a growing need, the National Committee for Bioethics in Health of Mozambique (CNBS) encouraged the development of ethical review processes at institutions that regularly conduct medical and social science research. In 2012, the Faculty of Medicine (FM) of University Eduardo Mondlane (UEM) and the Maputo Central Hospital (MCH) established a joint Institutional Committee on Bioethics for Health (CIBS FM & MCH). This study examines the experience of the first 4 years of the CIBS FM & MCH. METHODS: This study provides a descriptive, retrospective analysis of research protocols submitted to and approved by the CIBS FM & MCH between March 1, 2013 and December 31, 2016, together with an analysis of the Committee's respective reviews and actions. RESULTS: A total of 356 protocols were submitted for review during the period under analysis, with 309 protocols approved. Sixty-four percent were submitted by students, faculty, and researchers from UEM, mainly related to Master's degree research (42%). Descriptive cross-sectional studies were the most frequently reviewed research (61%). The majority were prospective (71%) and used quantitative methodologies (51%). The Departments of Internal Medicine at MCH and Community Health at the FM submitted the most protocols from their respective institutions, with 38 and 53% respectively. The CIBS's average time to final approval for all protocols was 56 days, rising to 161 for the 40 protocols that required subsequent national-level review by the CNBS. CONCLUSIONS: Our results show that over its first 4 years, the CIBS FM & MCH has been successful in managing a constant demand for protocol review and that several broad quality improvement initiatives, such as investigator mentoring and an electronic protocol submission platform have improved efficiency in the review process and the overall quality of the protocols submitted. Beyond Maputo, long-term investments in training and ethical capacity building for CIBS across the country continue to be needed, as Mozambique develops greater capacity for research and makes progress toward improving the health of all its citizens.

Comparative effectiveness research: what to do when experts disagree about risks.

BACKGROUND: Ethical issues related to comparative effectiveness research, or research that compares existing standards of care, have recently received considerable attention. In this paper we focus on how Ethics Review Committees (ERCs) should evaluate the risks of comparative effectiveness research. MAIN TEXT: We discuss what has been a prominent focus in the debate about comparative effectiveness research, namely that it is justified when "nothing is known" about the comparative effectiveness of the available alternatives. We argue that this focus may be misleading. Rather, we should focus on the fact that some experts believe that the evidence points in favor of one intervention, whereas other experts believe that the evidence favors the alternative(s). We will then introduce a case that illustrates this point, and based on that, discuss how ERCs should deal with such cases of expert disagreement. CONCLUSION: We argue that ERCs have a duty to assess the range of expert opinions and based on that assessment arrive at a risk judgment about the study under consideration. We also argue that assessment of expert disagreement is important for the assignment of risk level to a clinical trial: what is the basis for expert opinions, how strong is the evidence appealed to by various experts, and how can clinical trial monitoring affect the possible increased risk of clinical trial participation.

The practice of nursing research: getting ready for 'ethics' and the matter of character.

Few would argue with the idea that nursing research should be conducted ethically yet obtaining ethical approval is considered by many to have become unnecessarily burdensome. This brief article investigates the idea that there might be a relationship between the level of perceived burdensomeness of the research ethics application process on the one hand and the character of the nurse-researcher on the other. Given that nurses are required to be other-regarding, a nurse who undertakes research primarily for self-regarding reasons would seem to be acting in ways inconsistent with the aims of nursing as set out in nursing codes. It is suggested that the self-regarding nurse-researcher may find the ethics application process more burdensome than the other-regarding nurse-researcher who, it is further suggested, is engaged with nursing research as a practice in the technical sense in which that term has been developed by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre.

Discussion on the Overall Principle of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Ethics Review-Study on the Characteristics of Traditional Chinese Medicine Research Ethics Review (Four) / 中国医学伦理学

In the traditional Chinese medicine research ethics review, the basis of strengthening the overall concept and adhering to the overall principle is that paying attention to the rights and interests of the subjects at the same time focusing on the study objective and the study design, which is the ethics committee′s responsibility. The overall concept is the essential characteristic of traditional Chinese medicine. Only when sticking to the overall prin-ciple, the safety of subjects can be ensured. The implementation of the overall principle should review all of the fol-lowings:whether the investigational drug is certificated, the integrity of the test drug prescriptions, the prevention of drug side effect, and strengthen the construction of ethics committee.