Views of research ethics committee members on end-of-participation communications for trial participants who stop taking part: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: Giving information to trial participants who stop taking part could support them through what can be a difficult process. We previously developed guidance around the ethical acceptability of such information provision, and about how trialists can develop suitable communication materials. There is limited evidence about what research ethics committees think of this issue, and limited guidance about what level of oversight they should have over the proposed communications, or post-consent participant communications generally. We conducted a survey of UK ethics committee members to address these points. METHODS: The survey was co-developed by public contributors and trialists who had previously worked together on the communications guidance. We asked respondents if they agreed with the general idea of informing participants who stop taking part, if they had ever been requested to review similar communications, and what level of ethics committee review they might recommend. The survey was primarily conducted online. It was reviewed by three ethics committee members before finalisation and shared directly with all UK ethics committee members. We analysed quantitative questions descriptively and used inductive analysis for open questions to identify common themes. RESULTS: Ninety-one ethics committee members participated (nearly 10% of all UK members). The sample was similar to reported data about all members in terms of several personal characteristics. Most respondents (83%) agreed with our project's rationale. Only 23% of respondents reported having been asked to review an end-of-participation information sheet before. Respondents gave various answers about the level of ethics committee review required, but most supported a relatively proportionate review process. Common concerns were about the risk of coercion or making participants feel pressured. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey suggests that ethics committee members generally support providing information to trial participants who stop taking part, if risks to participants are mitigated. We believe our guidance already addresses the main concerns raised. Our respondents' lack of prior experience with end-of-participation information sheets suggests that participants are not getting information they want or need when they stop participating. Our results help clarify how ethics committee should oversee post-consent participant communications, but further guidance from research regulators could be helpful.

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.

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.

The creation of an adaptable informed consent form for research purposes to overcome national and institutional bottlenecks in ethics review: experience from rare disease registries.

Background: The lack of harmonization of evaluation criteria by Ethics Committees in the European Union (EU) has led to inconsistent ethics reviews received by research sites participating in multicenter non-interventional studies. The European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) appears to be implemented at national level with a substantial degree of variance in interpretation. The European Reference Networks (ERNs) were struggling in setting an Informed Consent Form (ICF) for registries, allowing reuse of data for research purposes. The aim of this work is to develop an adaptable ICF for research purposes to be used in ERN registries. Methods: To work on this challenge, a team was established within the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) to develop a patients' registry ICF template allowing easy adaptation to ERNs, country, and site-level specificities. ERN and patients' representatives validated the choice of developing a GDPR-compliant template for research purposes. The feedback received from 34 Ethics Committees on the Clinical Patient Management System ICF, including the submission of patients' data to the ERN registries and the EU consent regulatory framework were analyzed along with existing ontologies for data access and reuse. An adaptable ICF was developed following iterative cycles of consultation and review by clinicians, research experts, ethics and regulatory advisors, and patients' representatives. The development of pediatric material for minor participants was also undertaken. Results and Conclusion: Research oriented ICF templates for adults and for parents/legal representatives of patients were released in 26 national languages. This adaptable ICF aims to foster, according to patients' preferences, the reuse of registries data for research purposes in compliance with the applicable laws and standards. Pediatric material is being finalized to collect minors' assent. ICF machine-readability is also progressing to enhance data discovery and facilitate its access and reuse conditions.

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

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

Ethical considerations for Forensic Genetic Frequency databases: First Report conception and development.

The Forensic Databases Advisory Board (FDAB), an independent board that assists the International Society for Forensic Genetics (ISFG), has presented a First Report on ethical aspects of the following Forensic Genetic Frequency Databases (FGFD): EMPOP, STRidER and YHRD. The FDAB designed an ethical framework to evaluate the content of these FGFD, and the factors to be considered for retention and acceptance of submissions. The FDAB framework proposes to categorize submissions according to the risk of having contravened the universal ethical principles outlined by international organizations, and the guidelines adopted by the ISFG. The report has been open to discussion by the scientific community since 2023. Herein we present the conception and development of the First Report along with a summary of its content, with consideration of the feedback received.

The Ethics of Using News Stories concerning Minors as Empirical Material in Health Research: Reflections on a Swedish Case.

In 2021, we were designing a research study in Sweden in which we planned to use newspaper articles focusing on children and adolescents under the age of eighteen during the Covid-19 pandemic as empirical material. As we developed this study, an ethical question arose: do studies using journalistic articles that may contain health information about individuals as empirical material have to be approved by an ethics review committee? Sweden, in contrast to other countries, requires the approval of an ethics review committee for the use of publicly available material in research when such material might include sensitive personal data such as health-related information. This case study calls for harmonized laws and policies that support global research by clarifying what kinds of empirical material and what types of research must be assessed by national ethics review committees, including with consideration for children's safety and rights.

AI ethics on the road to responsible AI plant science and societal welfare.

The swiftness of artificial intelligence (AI) progress in plant science begets relevant ethical questions with significant scientific and societal implications. Embracing a principled approach to regulation, ethics review and monitoring, and human-centric interpretable informed AI (HIAI), we can begin to navigate our voyage towards ethical and socially responsible AI.

The Construction and Improvement of the Protection System for the Rights and Interests of Human Subjects in Trial Institutions from the Ethical Perspective: Taking a Hospital in Anhui Province as an Example / 中国医学伦理学

This paper took a hospital in Anhui province as an example, aimed at the problems existing in the protection of human subjects’ rights and interests in China, and put forward relevant suggestions from the ethical perspective. The suggestions included shaping the international vision, playing the core role of ethics committee, strengthening the construction of legal and regulatory protection mechanism, setting up the human research protection committee and actively promoting the construction of subject protection system. These measures will effectively promote the construction and improvement of the rights and interests protection system of human subjects in China.

Stakeholder Involvement in the Governance of Human Genome Editing in Japan.

Genome editing is a technology that can accurately and efficiently modify the genome of organisms, including the human genome. Although human genome editing (HGE) has many benefits, it also involves technical risks and ethical, legal, and social issues. Thus, the pros and cons of using this technology have been actively debated since 2015. Notably, the research community has taken an interest in the issue and has discussed it internationally. However, for the governance of HGE, the roles of government agencies and the general public are also important for an effective regulatory system. Here, we examine the roles of the research community, government, and public in the governance of HGE through an analysis of discussions in the Japanese Expert Panel on Bioethics. During the discussion of the research ethics review system, the professionalism of the research community and the pros and cons of state oversight have become issues for debate. Furthermore, through an examination of the overall policy-making process, three stakeholders are clearly involved in the governance of emerging medical technologies in the Expert Panel on Bioethics, a discussion forum established by government agencies. The contrast among these roles provides insight into the positive roles of government agencies and the research community and the conditions under which these roles are played. We also note that there are diverse actors in the public, which may have an impact on their participation. Our results may serve as a guide for countries and organizations to establish governance on emerging medical technologies.

[Researchers' Knowledge About the Ethical Norms of National Natural Science Foundation of China Funded Medical Research:Current Status and Suggestions].

Objective To understand the current status of Chinese medical researchers' knowledge regarding the ethical norms of the research involving humans or laboratory animals,and provide reference for further improving the ethics review norms. Methods The questionnaire method was employed to survey the applicants for the 2019 projects supported by the Department of Medical Sciences,National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) about their knowledge of ethical requirements.Furthermore,the ethical supervision of the NSFC and affiliations at the project application and implementation stages was analyzed. Results The survey showed that 29.9% medical researchers were familiar with NSFC's ethical requirements for research involving human or laboratory animals.During the project application stage,59.0% affiliations adopted the simplified review method.Regarding the ethical supervison,95.5% medical researchers believed that the affiliations should fulfill the ethical supervision obligations and take relevant measures during the project implementation period.In addition,55.0% medical researchers fully agreed to discuss with the review experts about the ethical issues involved in the project. Conclusions The NSFC should establish rules and regulations to improve institutional management responsibilities and institutionalize the training about research ethics to comprehensively strengthening the training.Taking the management of research project ethics as a starting point,the NSFC should form a multi-party linkage between project funding and management and establish an accountability mechanism for ethics management.Furthermore,the NSFC should double the endeavors at the review of ethical issues during expert review and process management and attach importance to the research,judgment,and prevention of ethical risks.

Implementation of single IRB review for multisite human subjects research: Persistent challenges and possible solutions.

Revisions to the Common Rule and NIH policy require the use of a single Institutional Review Board (sIRB) for the review of most federally funded, multisite research, with the intent of streamlining the review process. However, since initial implementation in 2018, many IRBs and institutions continue to struggle with the logistics of implementing this requirement. In this paper, we report the findings of a workshop held in 2022 to examine why sIRB review remains problematic and propose possible solutions. Workshop participants identified several issues as major barriers, including new responsibilities for study teams, persistent duplicative review processes, the lack of harmonization of policies and practices across institutions, the absence of additional guidance from federal agencies, and the need for greater flexibility in policy requirements. Addressing these problems will require providing additional resources and training to research teams, the commitment of institutional leaders to harmonize practice, and policymakers to critically evaluate the requirement and provide flexibility in applicability.

Tiempos de evaluación ética de protocolos de investigación: resultados de un estudio observacional / Time of ethics review of research proposals: results of an observational study

La evaluación de protocolos de investigación por Comités de Ética en Investigación (CEI), esencialpara garantizar la protección de los participantes, se gestiona en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires a través laplataforma electrónica PRIISA.BA desde enero del 2020. El objetivo del presente estudio fue describirlos tiempos de evaluación ética, su evolución temporal, y los predictores de su duración. Se realizóun estudio observacional que incluyó todos los protocolos evaluados entre enero de 2020 y septiem-bre de 2021. Se calcularon los tiempos al dictamen final y a la primera observación. Se evaluaron lastendencias temporales de los tiempos, y la asociación multivariada entre éstos y características de losprotocolos y de los CEI. Se incluyeron 2781 protocolos evaluados en 62 CEI. La mediana de tiempo aldictamen final fue de 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 a 63.35) días, y del tiempo a la primera observación de 8.92(RIQ 2.05 a 18.18) días. Los tiempos se redujeron significativamente a lo largo del período de estudio.Detectamos como variables independientemente asociadas a menor tiempo a la temática COVID, tenerfinanciamiento y el número de centros a realizarse el estudio y haber sido evaluado en un CEI con másde 10 miembros. La realización de observaciones al protocolo se asoció a mayor tiempo. Los resultadosdel presente trabajo sugieren que los tiempos de evaluación ética se redujeron durante el período deestudio. Además, se identificaron variables asociadas con los tiempos, que podrían ser objeto de inter-venciones para mejorar el proceso.(AU)

The review of research protocols by Research Ethics Committees (RECs), essential to ensure theprotection of participants, has been managed in the City of Buenos Aires through the PRIISA.BA elec-tronic platform since January 2020. The aim of the present study was to describe ethical review times,their temporal evolution, and predictors of their duration. We conducted an observational study thatincluded all the protocols reviewed between January 2020 and September 2021. Times to approvaland to first observation were calculated. Temporal trends in times, and the multivariate associationbetween these and protocol and IRB characteristics were evaluated. 2,781 protocols reviewed in 62RECs were included. The median time to approval was 29.11 (RIQ 11.29 to 63.35) days, and time to firstobservation was 8.92 (RIQ 2.05 to 18.18) days. The times were significantly reduced throughout thestudy period. We detected as variables independently associated with shorter time to approval to bea COVID proposal, having funding and the number of centers to perform the study and having beenreviewed by an RECs with more than 10 members. Making observations to the protocol was associatedwith more time. The results of the present work suggest that ethical review times were reduced duringstudy period. In addition, variables associated with time were identified that could be the object ofinterventions to improve the process.(AU)

Variability in Ethics Review for Multicenter Protocols in Buenos Aires, Argentina. An Observational Study.

It has been reported that significant variability in the ethics review process affects multisite studies. We analyzed 1,305 applications for multicenter studies (409 unique protocols), from 1st January 2020 to 20th September 2021. We examined the variability in the times to approval and the first observation and the variation in the level of risk assigned. The median [IQR] variabilities were 42.19 [15.23-82.36] days and 8.00 [3.12-16.68] days, for the times to approval and to the first observation, respectively. There was disagreement in the level of risk assigned by the Research Ethics Committee (REC) in 24.0% of cases. Independent predictors of variability included the number of REC members. In our study, we found substantial variability in the ethics review process among health research protocols. Also, we describe methods to readily measure the delays and the variations in the ethics review process.

Researchers' Knowledge About the Ethical Norms of National Natural Science Foundation of China Funded Medical Research:Current Status and Suggestions / 中国医学科学院学报

Objective To understand the current status of Chinese medical researchers' knowledge regarding the ethical norms of the research involving humans or laboratory animals,and provide reference for further improving the ethics review norms. Methods The questionnaire method was employed to survey the applicants for the 2019 projects supported by the Department of Medical Sciences,National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) about their knowledge of ethical requirements.Furthermore,the ethical supervision of the NSFC and affiliations at the project application and implementation stages was analyzed. Results The survey showed that 29.9% medical researchers were familiar with NSFC's ethical requirements for research involving human or laboratory animals.During the project application stage,59.0% affiliations adopted the simplified review method.Regarding the ethical supervison,95.5% medical researchers believed that the affiliations should fulfill the ethical supervision obligations and take relevant measures during the project implementation period.In addition,55.0% medical researchers fully agreed to discuss with the review experts about the ethical issues involved in the project. Conclusions The NSFC should establish rules and regulations to improve institutional management responsibilities and institutionalize the training about research ethics to comprehensively strengthening the training.Taking the management of research project ethics as a starting point,the NSFC should form a multi-party linkage between project funding and management and establish an accountability mechanism for ethics management.Furthermore,the NSFC should double the endeavors at the review of ethical issues during expert review and process management and attach importance to the research,judgment,and prevention of ethical risks.

Analysis on key points of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects: Based on the ethics review management system of horizontal scientific research projects in a tertiary hospital / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:This paper aims to promote the standardization of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects and improve the ethics review quality by analyzing the current ethics review practice in a certain tertiary hospital, identifying common problems during the review process, illustrating relevant causes and proposing corresponding solutions.Methods:Through introducing the current situation of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects in a tertiary level hospital, the differences between the main points of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects and government-funded scientific research projects were analyzed, so as to sort out the common problems and possible causes in the process of ethics review of horizontal scientific research projects, and then explore the possible corresponding solutions.Results:Based on the characteristics of horizontal research projects, ethics review should focus on their scientific and social values, potential conflicts of interest, protection of subjects′ rights and interests, and whole-process management and quality assurance. At present, there are still many problems, such as a large number of projects, but not many projects with high research value, inadequate project process management, and ineffective implementation of ethics review opinions.Conclusions:The hospital should further improve the management system of horizontal scientific research project approval, bring in more comprehensive review regarding to both scientific and ethics review, engage more experts at the outset of project funding decision-making, set up ethics specialists, strengthen the process management of horizontal scientific research projects, strengthen ethical publicity and education, and improve the ethical awareness of researchers to fully protect the rights and interests of subjects and promote the high-quality development of clinical research.

Understanding the update of application materials for initial ethics review of human life sciences and medical research / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:To sort out the new requirements for the initial ethical review application materials put forward by the Measures for the Ethical Review of Life Science and Medical Research Involving Humans that issued in 2023, to explore the ethical considerations behind these new requirements, and to put forward feasible suggestions on the key details and practical operations that should be paid attention to in the preparation of various initial ethical review application materials, so as to provide a certain reference for researchers, ethical review committees and institutions to standardize and promote ethical review.Methods:Compared with the relevant provisions of the 2016 Measures for the Ethical Review of Biomedical Research Involving Humans, this paper discusses the frontier hotspots of ethical theory and the practice of ethical review.Results:The preparation of application materials for initial ethical review should be based on an accurate understanding of the Measures, emphasize compliance, and avoid formally implementing regulatory requirements and increasing unnecessary burdens.Conclusions:It is the responsibility of researchers to prepare high-quality ethical review application materials, but institutions and ethical review committees must provide corresponding support, including clarifying the latest requirements of policies and regulations, updating the standard operating procedures of ethical review of their institutions, and ensuring timely and continuous ethical training and ethics consultation for researchers. The standardization and improvement of ethical review work requires a more comprehensive perspective and systematic planning to strengthen the responsibility of all parties.

Challenges and practical thinking on commissioned ethics review / 中华医学科研管理杂志

Objective:To discuss the necessity and possible difficulties faced in the implementation of commissioned ethics review in China, propose preliminary operational suggestions for the implementation of ethical review.Methods:Systematically review the relevant provisions on commissioned ethics review. Analyze possible problems and related reasons in the implementation of commissioned ethics review, taking into account the current status of entrusted review and the author's practical experience.Results:The commissioned ethics review is an important supplement to the ethical review system, however, there may be many difficulties, such as unclear ″indications″ and operating procedures, unclear standards and paths for the commissioned ethics committees, unclear responsibilities for ethical review, and low level of enthusiasm for the entrusted review.Conclusions:Commissioned ethics review is a strategy worth exploring. Refining the guidelines for commissioned ethics review, exploiting regional advantages of ethical resources, strengthening the capacity building of ethics committees, promoting the evaluation of the ethics committees, establishing an ethics review network with complementary advantages, building information systems, and constructing governance systems are important foundations for promoting the smooth implementation of entrusted review.