The Ottawa Statement implementation guidance document for cluster randomized trials in the hemodialysis setting.

Research teams are increasingly interested in using cluster randomized trial (CRT) designs to generate practice-guiding evidence for in-center maintenance hemodialysis. However, CRTs raise complex ethical issues. The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues arising within 7 domains: justifying the CRT design, research ethics committee review, identifying research participants, obtaining informed consent, gatekeepers, assessing benefits and harms, and protecting vulnerable participants. But applying the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting is complicated by the unique features of the setting and population. Here, with the help of content experts and patient partners, we co-developed this implementation guidance document to provide research teams, research ethics committees, and other stakeholders with detailed guidance on how to apply the Ottawa Statement recommendations to CRTs in the hemodialysis setting, the result of a 4-year research project. Thus, our work demonstrates how the voices of patients, caregivers, and all stakeholders may be included in the development of research ethics guidance.

Government Initiatives for Research Ethics During COVID-19 Pandemic in Korea.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing necessity for government-led policy changes on clinical research ethics during pandemic, the scope of previous literature is limited to Korean government's pandemic response strategies or reflections of research ethics at the level of institutions and academic societies. This paper examines the proactive policy changes and responses by the South Korean government in addressing the challenges and issues of research ethics against the backdrop of the urgency of rapid development and emergency supply of medical products during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: We conducted searches of various government documents, using predetermined keywords related to research ethics and integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Only documents issued by governments or public institutions were included. A total of 24 documents were selected for analysis. They were divided into two phases: the first phase for urgent response (January 2020-February 2021) and the second phase (March 2021-February 2023) for long-term preparedness. RESULTS: The Korean government recommended several measures of research governance to accelerate the ethical review of COVID-related research to be shortened less than one week: the joint operation of Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), exempted or expedited review by a special review committee, guidelines for urgent reviews, and designation of the Korean Academy of Medical Sciences as the supervising agency for the Clinical Trial Safety Support Institution as well as the Central IRB. It allowed temporary non-face-to-face methods for informed consent process (telephone explanations and a photo of the original signed consent) and clinical trials (telephone counselling and prescription, proxy prescription, and drug delivery and supply to clinical trial participants, and online ethics training). CONCLUSION: As a result of South Korea's commitment to ethical principles in their pandemic response, the medical system did not experience collapses due to the pandemic, and pandemic research was conducted with careful ethical considerations. The pandemic ethics immunization during the Middle East respiratory syndrome epidemic in 2015 laid the foundation for prompt government initiatives that ensured both pandemic research ethics and pandemic response ethics.

Research ethics review during the COVID-19 pandemic: An international study.

Research ethics review committees (ERCs) worldwide faced daunting challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a need to balance rapid turnaround with rigorous evaluation of high-risk research protocols in the context of considerable uncertainty. This study explored the experiences and performance of ERCs during the pandemic. We conducted an anonymous, cross-sectional, global online survey of chairs (or their delegates) of ERCs who were involved in the review of COVID-19-related research protocols after March 2020. The survey ran from October 2022 to February 2023 and consisted of 50 items, with opportunities for descriptive responses to open-ended questions. Two hundred and three participants [130 from high-income countries (HICs) and 73 from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)] completed our survey. Respondents came from diverse entities and organizations from 48 countries (19 HICs and 29 LMICs) in all World Health Organization regions. Responses show little of the increased global funding for COVID-19 research was allotted to the operation of ERCs. Few ERCs had pre-existing internal policies to address operation during public health emergencies, but almost half used existing guidelines. Most ERCs modified existing procedures or designed and implemented new ones but had not evaluated the success of these changes. Participants overwhelmingly endorsed permanently implementing several of them. Few ERCs added new members but non-member experts were consulted; quorum was generally achieved. Collaboration among ERCs was infrequent, but reviews conducted by external ERCs were recognized and validated. Review volume increased during the pandemic, with COVID-19-related studies being prioritized. Most protocol reviews were reported as taking less than three weeks. One-third of respondents reported external pressure on their ERCs from different stakeholders to approve or reject specific COVID-19-related protocols. ERC members faced significant challenges to keep their committees functioning during the pandemic. Our findings can inform ERC approaches towards future public health emergencies. To our knowledge, this is the first international, COVID-19-related study of its kind.

Should Children Be Included in Human Challenge Studies?

Human challenge studies, in which human research subjects are intentionally exposed to pathogens to contribute to scientific knowledge, raise many ethical complexities. One controversial question is whether it is ethically permissible to include children as participants. Commentary of the past decades endorses the exclusion of children, while new guidance suggests that pediatric human challenge studies can be ethically permissible. This paper argues that neither children's exclusion nor their inclusion are well justified. I examine and reject three arguments for exclusion, but suggest that these arguments establish pediatric human challenge studies as a complex ethical category of research that requires caution. I then argue for a strong presumption against children's inclusion, by drawing on an analogy to children's inclusion in phase I trials, emphasizing a requirement of necessity, and suggesting that accommodating children's vulnerability promotes an age de-escalation approach for pediatric human challenge studies research. In the final section, I suggest a procedure for ethics review.

Research ethics and artificial intelligence for global health: perspectives from the global forum on bioethics in research.

BACKGROUND: The ethical governance of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in health care and public health continues to be an urgent issue for attention in policy, research, and practice. In this paper we report on central themes related to challenges and strategies for promoting ethics in research involving AI in global health, arising from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research (GFBR), held in Cape Town, South Africa in November 2022. METHODS: The GFBR is an annual meeting organized by the World Health Organization and supported by the Wellcome Trust, the US National Institutes of Health, the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the South African MRC. The forum aims to bring together ethicists, researchers, policymakers, research ethics committee members and other actors to engage with challenges and opportunities specifically related to research ethics. In 2022 the focus of the GFBR was "Ethics of AI in Global Health Research". The forum consisted of 6 case study presentations, 16 governance presentations, and a series of small group and large group discussions. A total of 87 participants attended the forum from 31 countries around the world, representing disciplines of bioethics, AI, health policy, health professional practice, research funding, and bioinformatics. In this paper, we highlight central insights arising from GFBR 2022. RESULTS: We describe the significance of four thematic insights arising from the forum: (1) Appropriateness of building AI, (2) Transferability of AI systems, (3) Accountability for AI decision-making and outcomes, and (4) Individual consent. We then describe eight recommendations for governance leaders to enhance the ethical governance of AI in global health research, addressing issues such as AI impact assessments, environmental values, and fair partnerships. CONCLUSIONS: The 2022 Global Forum on Bioethics in Research illustrated several innovations in ethical governance of AI for global health research, as well as several areas in need of urgent attention internationally. This summary is intended to inform international and domestic efforts to strengthen research ethics and support the evolution of governance leadership to meet the demands of AI in global health research.

Corrigendum Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas / Corrigendum La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas / Corrigendum à Priorização da pesquisa é um exercício ético: lições do Fórum Global de Bioética em Pesquisa para a Região das Américas

The Pan American Journal of Public Health draws readers' attention to an error in the following article, pointed out by the authors: Saenz C, Carracedo S, Caballero C, Hurtado C, Leite Ribeiro A, Luna F, et al. Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024;48:e32. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.32 In article published on March 2024, reference 2 appears as follows: Global Forum on Bioethics in Research. GFBR 2023 Key- note presentation [Internet video]. Youtube. 2024 Feb 01 [cited 2024 Feb 13]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M The correct way to reference 2 is: Millum J. Ethics of health research priority setting [video]. Uploaded by Global Forum on Bioethics in Research, 1 February 2024. [Accessed on 13 February 2024] Available from: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M.

Corrigendum La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas / Corrigendum Research priority-setting is an ethics exercise: lessons from the Global Forum on Bioethics in Research for the Region of the Americas / Corrigendum à Priorização da pesquisa é um exercício ético: lições do Fórum Global de Bioética em Pesquisa para a Região das Américas

La Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública llama la atención de los lectores sobre un error en el siguiente artículo, señalado por los autores: Saenz C, Carracedo S, Caballero C, Hurtado C, Leite Ribeiro A, Luna F, et al. La priorización de la investigación es un ejercicio ético: lecciones del Foro Global de Bioética en la Investigación para la Región de las Américas. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2024;48:e26. https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2024.26 En el artículo publicado en marzo 2024, la referencia 2 aparece de la siguiente manera: Global Forum on Bioethics in Research. GFBR 2023 Keynote presentation [video en internet]. Youtube. 1 de febrero de 2024 [citado 13 de febrero de 2024]. Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M La forma correcta para la referencia 2 debe ser: Millum J. Ethics of health research priority setting [video]. Subido por Global Forum on Bioethics in Research, 1 de febrero de 2024. [citado 13 de febrero de 2024] Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=HlPgN6n6i8M

Bioética y democracia en la sociedad digital / Bioètica i democràcia a la societat digital / Bioethics and democracy in digital society

La sociedad contemporánea vive la revolución digital y la necesidad de reflexionar sobre la interacción entre los seres humanos y las tecnologías digitales. El auge de las tecnologías de inteligencia artificial y la algoritmización social ha planteado interrogantes sobre la indispensabilidad de la supervisión y el análisis ético de la información y los datos en Internet. Así como la necesidad de verificar la influencia de las plataformas digitales en el ejercicio de la ciudadanía. La bioética posibilita la investigación sobre los principios que se deben respetar en una sociedad democrática y digital. Resaltamos los principios de responsabilidad social y no discriminación con la intención de que los beneficios del uso tecnológico promuevan el bienestar y la calidad de vida de los menos favorecidos. Su objetivo es garantizar la supervivencia de la especie humana y la mejora de la protección de la vida de todos los seres vivos, animales y plantas. La reflexión bioética sobre el uso de la inteligencia artificial podría establecer la brújula moral que oriente el análisis de los conflictos éticos y la defensa de que a todos los seres humanos se les debe garantizar la igualdad de oportunidades y las condiciones para realizar plenamente su proyecto de vida.(AU)

La societat contemporània viu la revolució digital i la necessitat de reflexionar sobre la interacció entre els éssers humans i les tecnologies digitals. L'auge de les tecnologies d'intel·ligència artificial i la algoritmització social ha plantejat interrogants sobre la indispensabilitat de la supervisió i l'anàlisi ètic de la informació i les dades a Internet. Així com la necessitat de verificar la influència de les plataformes digitals en l'exercici de la ciutadania. La bioètica possibilita la recerca sobre els principis que es deuen respectar en una societat democràtica i digital. Destaquem els principis de responsabilitat social i no discriminació amb la intenció que els beneficis de l'ús tecnològic promoguin el benestar i la qualitat de vida dels menys afavorits. El seu objectiu és garantir la supervivència de l'espècie humana i la millora de la protecció de la vida de tots els éssers vius, animals i plantes. La reflexió bioètica sobre l'ús de la intel·ligència artificial podria establir la brúixola moral que orienti l'anàlisi dels conflictes ètics i la defensa que a tots els éssers humans se'ls ha de garantir la igualtat d'oportunitats i les condicionsper realitzar plenament el seu projecte de vida.(AU)

Contemporary society is going through the digital revolution and the need to reflect on the interaction between human beings and digital technologies. The rise of artificial intelligence technologies and social algorithmization has raised questions about the need for ethical monitoring and analysis of information and data on the Internet. As well as the need to verify the influence of digital platforms in the exercise of citizenship. Bioethics enables research on the principles that must be respected in a democratic and digital society. We highlight the principles of social responsibility and non-discrimination with the intention that the benefits of technological use promote the well-being and quality of life of the less favored. Its objective is to guarantee the survival of the human species and the improvement of the protection of the life of all living beings, animals, and plants. Bioethical reflection on the use of artificial intelligence could establish the moral compass that guides the analysis of ethical conflicts and the defense that all human beings must be guaranteed equal opportunities and the conditions to fully carry out their project of life.(AU)

Research integrity and academic medicine: the pressure to publish and research misconduct.

CONTEXT: This narrative review article explores research integrity and the implications of scholarly work in medical education. The paper describes how the current landscape of medical education emphasizes research and scholarly activity for medical students, resident physicians, and faculty physician educators. There is a gap in the existing literature that fully explores research integrity, the challenges surrounding the significant pressure to perform scholarly activity, and the potential for ethical lapses by those involved in medical education. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review article are to provide a background on authorship and publication safeguards, outline common types of research misconduct, describe the implications of publication in medical education, discuss the consequences of ethical breaches, and outline possible solutions to promote research integrity in academic medicine. METHODS: To complete this narrative review, the authors explored the current literature utilizing multiple databases beginning in June of 2021, and they completed the literature review in January of 2023. To capture the wide scope of the review, numerous searches were performed. A number of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms were utilized to identify relevant articles. The MeSH terms included "scientific misconduct," "research misconduct," "authorship," "plagiarism," "biomedical research/ethics," "faculty, medical," "fellowships and scholarships," and "internship and residency." Additional references were accessed to include medical school and residency accreditation standards, residency match statistics, regulatory guidelines, and standard definitions. RESULTS: Within the realm of academic medicine, research misconduct and misrepresentation continue to occur without clear solutions. There is a wide range of severity in breaches of research integrity, ranging from minor infractions to fraud. Throughout the medical education system in the United States, there is pressure to publish research and scholarly work. Higher rates of publications are associated with a successful residency match for students and academic promotion for faculty physicians. For those who participate in research misconduct, there is a multitude of potential adverse consequences. Potential solutions to ensure research integrity exist but are not without barriers to implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Pressure in the world of academic medicine to publish contributes to the potential for research misconduct and authorship misrepresentation. Lapses in research integrity can result in a wide range of potentially adverse consequences for the offender, their institution, the scientific community, and the public. If adopted, universal research integrity policies and procedures could make major strides in eliminating research misconduct in the realm of academic medicine.

Ethical Research and the Institutional Review Board: An Introduction.

Editor's note: This is the 20th article in a series on clinical research by nurses. The series is designed to be used as a resource for nurses to understand the concepts and principles essential to research. Each column will present the concepts that underpin evidence-based practice-from research design to data interpretation. To see all the articles in the series, go to https://links.lww.com/AJN/A204.

When a Negative Experience Sticks With You: Does the Revised Outcome Debriefing Counteract the Consequences of Experimental Ostracism in Psychological Research?

For research purposes, it is generally accepted that experimental ostracism manipulations can lead to a reduction of participants' well-being. To eventually restore participants' well-being, researchers rely on post-experimental debriefings that discredit prior deception. However, evidence suggests that discredited beliefs can persevere. The present research investigates whether a potent debriefing procedure restores participants' well-being after an experimentally induced ostracism experience. In two studies, participants were either excluded or included in a Cyberball game, indicated their well-being, and were debriefed. In two additional conditions, participants were debriefed before indicating their well-being. Ostracism compared to inclusion led to decreased positive and increased negative mood. The debriefing did not counteract this effect (Studies 1 & 2). Unwanted aftereffects of the manipulation persevered for more than one day after the experimental session (Study 2). These findings question the effectiveness of debriefings and raise issues about research ethics.

Compliance with research ethics in epidemiological studies targeted to conflict-affected areas in Western Ethiopia: validity of informed consent (VIC) by information comprehension and voluntariness (ICV).

BACKGROUND: The conduct of research is critical to advancing human health. However, there are issues of ethical concern specific to the design and conduct of research in conflict settings. Conflict-affected countries often lack strong platform to support technical guidance and monitoring of research ethics, which may lead to the use of divergent ethical standards some of which are poorly elaborated and loosely enforced. Despite the growing concern about ethical issues in research, there is a dearth of information about ethical compliance in conflict areas. Valid and ethically informed decision-making is a premier pact with research participants in settling possible ethical issues before commencing the research, which is ensured by gaining informed consent from prospective participants of the research. AIMS: This research aimed to explore compliance with research ethics and consent validity in community-based epidemiological research conducted previously. METHODS: Research participants were recruited in the western part of Ethiopia in three districts subjected to conflicts. A community-based cross-sectional study design was utilized, and 338 residents were enrolled as study participants. All participants had previously been enrolled as research participants in epidemiological studies. Data was collected using a questionnaire that was pilot-tested before the commencement of the main data collection. The questionnaire focused on participants' experiences of the informed consent process followed when they were recruited for an epidemiological study and covered themes such as essential information provided, level of comprehension, and voluntarism of consent. RESULTS: Over half of the study participants, 176 (52%), were not provided with essential information before consenting. And 135 (40%) of them did not comprehend the information provided to them. One hundred and ninety (56%) participants freely and voluntarily agreed to partake in one of these epidemiological studies, with over a quarter (97; 28.7%) of them reporting they were subjected to undue influence. Written consent was obtained from only 32 (9.4%) of the participants.

Culturally appropriate consent processes for community-driven indigenous child health research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Current requirements for ethical research in Canada, specifically the standard of active or signed parental consent, can leave Indigenous children and youth with inequitable access to research opportunities or health screening. Our objective was to examine the literature to identify culturally safe research consent processes that respect the rights of Indigenous children, the rights and responsibilities of parents or caregivers, and community protocols. METHODS: We followed PRISMA guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's approach for charting and synthesizing evidence. We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Informit Indigenous Collection, Bibliography of Native North Americans, and Sociological Abstracts. We included peer-reviewed primary and theoretical research articles written in English from January 1, 2000, to March 31, 2022, examining Indigenous approaches for obtaining informed consent from parents, families, children, or youth. Eligible records were uploaded to Covidence for title and abstract screening. We appraised the findings using a Two-Eyed Seeing approach. These findings were inductively coded using NVivo 12 and analyzed thematically. RESULTS: We identified 2,984 records and 11 eligible studies were included after screening. Three key recommendations emerged: addressing tensions in the ethics of consent, embracing wise practices, and using relational approaches to consent. Tensions in consent concerned Research Ethics Board consent requirements that fall short of protecting Indigenous children and communities when culturally incongruent. Wise practices included allowing parents and children to consent together, land-based consenting, and involving communities in decision-making. Using relational approaches to consent embodied community engagement and relationship building while acknowledging consent for Indigenous children cannot be obtained in isolation from family and community. CONCLUSIONS: Very few studies discussed obtaining child consent in Indigenous communities. While Indigenous communities are not a monolith, the literature identified a need for community-driven, decolonized consent processes prioritizing Indigenous values and protocols. Further research is needed to examine nuances of Indigenized consent processes and determine how to operationalize them, enabling culturally appropriate, equitable access to research and services for all Indigenous children.

Public health and research ethics education: the experience of developing a new cadre of bioethicists at a Ugandan institution.

Research ethics education is critical to developing a culture of responsible conduct of research. Many countries in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) have a high burden of infectious diseases like HIV and malaria; some, like Uganda, have recurring outbreaks. Coupled with the increase in non-communicable diseases, researchers have access to large populations to test new medications and vaccines. The need to develop multi-level capacity in research ethics in Uganda is still huge, being compounded by the high burden of disease and challenging public health issues. Only a few institutions in the SSA offer graduate training in research ethics, implying that the proposed ideal of each high-volume research ethics committee having at least one member with in-depth training in ethics is far from reality. Finding best practices for comparable situations and training requirements is challenging because there is currently no "gold standard" for teaching research ethics and little published information on curriculum and implementation strategies. The purpose of this paper is to describe a model of research ethics (RE) education as a track in an existing 2-year Master of Public Health (MPH) to provide training for developing specific applied learning skills to address contemporary and emerging needs for biomedical and public health research in a highly disease-burdened country. We describe our five-year experience in successful implementation of the MPH-RE program by the Mbarara University Research Ethics Education Program at Mbarara University of Science and Technology in southwestern Uganda. We used curriculum materials, applications to the program, post-training and external evaluations, and annual reports for this work. This model can be adapted and used elsewhere in developing countries with similar contexts. Establishing an interface between public health and research ethics requires integration of the two early in the delivery of the MPH-RE program to prevent a disconnect in knowledge between research methods provided by the MPH component of the MPH-RE program and for research in ethics that MPH-RE students are expected to perform for their dissertation. Promoting bioethics education, which is multi-disciplinary, in institutions where it is still "foreign" is challenging and necessitates supportive leadership at all institutional levels.