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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design for CLN3 disease, an ultra-rare lysosomal storage disorder.

BACKGROUND: Travel burden often substantially limits the ability of individuals to participate in clinical trials. Wide geographic dispersion of individuals with rare diseases poses an additional key challenge in the conduct of clinical trials for rare diseases. Novel technologies and methods can improve access to research by connecting participants in their homes and local communities to a distant research site. For clinical trials, however, understanding of factors important for transition from traditional multi-center trial models to local participation models is limited. We sought to test a novel, hybrid, single- and multi-site clinical trial design in the context of a trial for Juvenile Neuronal Ceroid Lipofuscinosis (CLN3 disease), a very rare pediatric neurodegenerative disorder. METHODS: We created a "hub and spoke" model for implementing a 22-week crossover clinical trial of mycophenolate compared with placebo, with two 8-week study arms. A single central site, the "hub," conducted screening, consent, drug dispensing, and tolerability and efficacy assessments. Each participant identified a clinician to serve as a collaborating "spoke" site to perform local safety monitoring. Study participants traveled to the hub at the beginning and end of each study arm, and to their individual spoke site in the intervening weeks. RESULTS: A total of 18 spoke sites were established for 19 enrolled study participants. One potential participant was unable to identify a collaborating local site and was thus unable to participate. Study start-up required a median 6.7 months (interquartile range = 4.6-9.2 months). Only 33.3% (n = 6 of 18) of spoke site investigators had prior clinical trial experience, thus close collaboration with respect to study startup, training, and oversight was an important requirement. All but one participant completed all study visits; no study visits were missed due to travel requirements. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents a step toward local trial participation for patients with rare diseases. Even in the context of close oversight, local participation models may be best suited for studies of compounds with well-understood side-effect profiles, for those with straightforward modes of administration, or for studies requiring extended follow-up periods.

Transitioning to the National Institutes of Health single institutional review board model: Piloting the use of the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Obtaining ethical approval from multiple institutional review boards is a long-standing challenge to multi-site clinical trials and often leads to significant delays in study activation and enrollment. As of 25 January 2018, the National Institutes of Health began requiring use of a single institutional review board for US multi-site trials. To learn more and further inform the research and regulatory communities around aspects of transitioning to single institutional review board review, this study evaluated the efficiency, resource use, and user perceptions of a nascent institutional review board reliance model (Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance). METHODS: This research was embedded within the Influenza Vaccine to Effectively Stop Cardio Thoracic Events and Decompensated Heart Failure trial-a multi-site trial of two influenza vaccine formulations. In the first year of the trial, a sample of sites agreed to use the developing Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model and participated in its evaluation. In keeping with a least burdensome approach, short surveys were developed and obtained from each reporting entity (relying sites, non-relying site, lead site, and reviewing institutional review board). Data regarding time to institutional review board approval and site activation, costs, and user perceptions of reliant review were self-reported and collected via the survey form. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed, with costs analyzed as actual versus estimated due to the lack of established baseline cost data. RESULTS: A total of 13 sites ceded review and received institutional review board approval. Mean time to approval was substantially faster in sites that ceded review using the Streamlined, Multi-site, Accelerated Resources for Trials IRB Reliance model versus the site that did not cede review (81 vs 121 days). The mean time to approval was also faster than published averages for academic medical centers (81 vs 103 days). Time to first enrollment was faster for ceding sites versus the non-ceding site, and also faster than published averages (126 vs 149 and 169 days, respectively). Costs were higher than estimates for local institutional review board review and approval. Nearly half (47%) the stakeholders reported being very satisfied or satisfied with the reliance experience, although many noted the challenge related to institutional culture change. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a single institutional review board represents a shift in practice and culture for many institutions. Evaluation of the reliance arrangements for this study highlights both the potential of, and challenges for, institutions as they transition to single institutional review board review. Although efficiencies were observed for study start-up, we anticipate a learning curve as institutions and research teams implement necessary process and resource changes to adapt to single institutional review board oversight. Findings may inform research teams but are, however, limited by the relatively small number of sites and lack of a control group.

Oversight of Patient-Centered Outcomes Research: Recommendations From a Delphi Panel.

A key aim of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR) is to generate data that are important to patients by deliberately and extensively involving them in all aspects of research, from design to dissemination. However, certain elements of PCOR raise challenging and potentially novel ethical and regulatory issues for institutional review boards and oversight bodies. These challenges stem primarily from the engagement of patients in roles other than research subject, such as advisors, study personnel, and co-investigators, which gives rise to questions about appropriate levels of protection, training, and education, as well as identifying and managing conflicts of interest. This article presents and discusses recommendations from a Delphi expert panel that was convened to address these and other PCOR-related oversight challenges.

Huge variation in obtaining ethical permission for a non-interventional observational study in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study. METHODS: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA. RESULTS: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries. DISCUSSION: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies. CONCLUSION: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries.

Methodological challenges in European ethics approvals for a genetic epidemiology study in critically ill patients: the GenOSept experience.

BACKGROUND: During the set-up phase of an international study of genetic influences on outcomes from sepsis, we aimed to characterise potential differences in ethics approval processes and outcomes in participating European countries. METHODS: Between 2005 and 2007 of the FP6-funded international Genetics Of Sepsis and Septic Shock (GenOSept) project, we asked national coordinators to complete a structured survey of research ethic committee (REC) approval structures and processes in their countries, and linked these data to outcomes. Survey findings were reconfirmed or modified in 2017. RESULTS: Eighteen countries participated in the study, recruiting 2257 patients from 160 ICUs. National practices differed widely in terms of composition of RECs, procedures and duration of the ethics approval process. Eight (44.4%) countries used a single centralised process for approval, seven (38.9%) required approval by an ethics committee in each participating hospital, and three (16.7%) required both. Outcomes of the application process differed widely between countries because of differences in national legislation, and differed within countries because of interpretation of the ethics of conducting research in patients lacking capacity. The RECs in four countries had no lay representation. The median time from submission to final decision was 1.5 (interquartile range 1-7) months; in nine (50%) approval was received within 1 month; six took over 6 months, and in one 24 months; had all countries been able to match the most efficient approvals processes, an additional 74 months of country or institution-level recruitment would have been available. In three countries, rejection of the application by some local RECs resulted in loss of centres; and one country rejected the application outright. CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefits of the single application portal offered by the European Clinical Trials Regulation will not be realised without harmonisation of research ethics committee practices as well as national legislation.

I. THE ROLE OF RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES IN OBSERVATIONAL STUDIES: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL REGISTRIES, CASE REPORTS, INTERVIEWS, AND RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES.

It is often unclear to the clinical investigator whether observational studies should be submitted to a research ethics committee (REC), mostly because, in general, no active or additional interventions are performed. Moreover, obtaining an informed consent under these circumstances may be challenging, either because these are very large epidemiological registries, or the subject may no longer be alive, is too ill to consent, or is impossible to contact after being discharged. Although observational studies do not involve interventions, they entail ethical concerns, including threats such as breaches in confidentiality and autonomy, and respect for basic rights of the research subjects according to the good clinical practices. In this context, in addition to their main function as evaluators from an ethical, methodological, and regulatory point of view, the RECs serve as mediators between the research subjects, looking after their basic rights, and the investigator or institution, safeguarding them from both legal and unethical perils that the investigation could engage, by ensuring that all procedures are performed following the international standards of care for research. The aim of this manuscript is to provide information on each type of study and its risks, along with actions to prevent such risks, and the function of RECs in each type of study.

III. THE ROLE OF THE RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES IN THE REGULATION OF PHARMA-SPONSORED STUDIES.

Participants of Pharma-sponsored research are exposed to risks, benefits, and uncertainties that do not occur in other forms of clinical studies. Ethics committees represent the subjects' first line of protection. This responsibility begins with the study review and ends after all study subjects finish the intervention. The objective of this paper is to review the most common controversial issues found in Pharma-sponsored studies. Potential solutions are proposed to prevent or resolve the polemical aspects. However, different challenges will be faced in the near future (e.g., when new therapies reach their late stage of development). All parties involved in research should work together to guarantee the protection of participants, the paramount principle on which clinical investigation is based. Pharma-sponsored research is a crucial driver to develop and implement innovative approaches to improve the informed consent process and the execution of the studies.

Los comités de investigación en salud: su autoridad, responsabilidad fundamental y necesidad de que se sometan a auditorías periódicas.

Research ethics must include theoretical and practical dimensions. The first one is structured by regulations and policies, and the second dimension refers to how the committee interprets and applies those regulations and policies. This article analyses the operation of the committees at a practical level. Given that the evaluation and judgement of research protocols is a process that requires full awareness, its omission entails important implications for health research.

La ética de la investigación debe incluir las dimensiones teórica y práctica. La primera la conforman regulaciones y directrices y la segunda alude a la forma cómo los comités de ética y ética de la investigación interpretan y aplican esas regulaciones y directrices. En este artículo se analiza la operación de los comités a nivel práctico. Dado que la evaluación y el dictamen de los protocolos de investigación es un proceso que requiere consciencia plena, la omisión de esta conlleva importantes implicaciones para la investigación en salud.

Responsible Research With Urban American Indians and Alaska Natives.

American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities harbor understandable mistrust of research. Outside researchers have historically controlled processes, promulgating conclusions and recommended policies with virtually no input from the communities studied. Reservation-based communities can apply sovereignty rights conferred by the federal government to change this research trajectory. Many tribes now require review and approval before allowing research activities to occur, in part through the development of regulatory codes and oversight measures. Tribal oversight ensures that research is directed toward questions of importance to the community and that results are returned in ways that optimize problem solving. Unfortunately, tribal governance protections do not always extend to AI/ANs residing in urban environments. Although they represent the majority of AI/ANs, urban Indians face an ongoing struggle for visibility and access to health care. It is against this backdrop that urban Indians suffer disproportionate health problems. Improved efforts to ensure responsible research with urban Indian populations requires attention to community engagement, research oversight, and capacity building. We consider strategies to offset these limitations and develop a foundation for responsible research with urban Indians.

Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials.

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or 'preapproval', access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients' best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee (CompAC). Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice.

Differences and structural weaknesses of institutional mechanisms for health research ethics: Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and Democratic Republic of the Congo.

BACKGROUND: Regardless of national contexts, the institutions responsible for research ethics, founded on international regulations, are all expected to be structured and to operate in a common way. Our experience with several countries on different continents, however, has raised questions in this regard. This article examines the differences and structural weaknesses of ethics committees in four countries (Burkina Faso, Palestine, Peru, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo) where we have conducted the same socio-anthropological study in the field of reproductive health. METHODS: In addition to recording our observations during field surveys for this study, we performed a documentary review and interviewed expert members of ethics committees, research participants, and researchers who had experience with requesting ethics approvals for research protocols in the field of social sciences and health. RESULTS: The results of this study showed that, despite having the same mandate, the committees functioned differently, while they all exhibited the same weaknesses. Thus, the universalization and standardization of institutional conditions for applying ethical standards in research still present problems that are, at the very least, relevant. CONCLUSION: This study on ethics committees in four countries demonstrated the profound influence of context on the ways in which different institutions function and enforce regulations. In effect, in all social fields, every innovation is infused by its context.

Institutional review boards' attitudes towards remuneration in paediatric research: Ethical considerations.

Remuneration in paediatric research poses an ethical dilemma. Too large a sum might cause parents to enrol their children in research projects with no benefit for the child, whereas too modest a sum might hamper recruitment. The institutional review boards have the responsibility to only approve remuneration in paediatric trials with ethically sound research plans. However, little is known about which factors influence institutional review boards' evaluation of remuneration in paediatric research.

Enhancing patients' autonomy by involving them in research ethics committees.

OBJECTIVE: Although clinical trial participants are the most affected by research ethics committee's decisions, they are not formally represented on Swiss committees. We aimed to find out what patients think about the idea of being members of such committees. DESIGN: Latent thematic analysis was used to analyse the interviews. SETTING: Patients were recruited in a Swiss university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: The study involved 26 patients suffering from diabetes or gout. INTERVENTIONS: We conducted semi-structured interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We explored what patients think of being established members of research ethics committees. RESULTS: We identified three different attitudes among our participants regarding participation in research ethics committees: (i) positive attitude regarding the idea of being members of such committees, (ii) ambivalent attitude and (iii) negative attitude. Patients belonging to the first group (i) often mentioned that they wanted their health condition to be more visible. Patients from the second group (ii) mentioned positive as well as negative aspects. Patients from the third group (iii) said that patients in general did not have enough background knowledge to be able to gain an overview of a whole clinical trial. CONCLUSIONS: Our study adds important knowledge about the idea of patients becoming research ethics committee members by exploring their perceptions of being members. Stable patients tended to be interested in the idea of participation and some specific recommendations could be derived (patients could have an advisory instead of a decision-making role on committees). However, further studies with more patients and further quantitative research are needed.

Navigating Ethics in the Digital Age: Introducing Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE), a Tool for Researchers and Institutional Review Boards.

Research studies that leverage emerging technologies, such as passive sensing devices and mobile apps, have demonstrated encouraging potential with respect to favorably influencing the human condition. As a result, the nascent fields of mHealth and digital medicine have gained traction over the past decade as demonstrated in the United States by increased federal funding for research that cuts across a broad spectrum of health conditions. The existence of mHealth and digital medicine also introduced new ethical and regulatory challenges that both institutional review boards (IRBs) and researchers are struggling to navigate. In response, the Connected and Open Research Ethics (CORE) initiative was launched. The CORE initiative has employed a participatory research approach, whereby researchers and IRB affiliates are involved in identifying the priorities and functionality of a shared resource. The overarching goal of CORE is to develop dynamic and relevant ethical practices to guide mHealth and digital medicine research. In this Viewpoint paper, we describe the CORE initiative and call for readers to join the CORE Network and contribute to the bigger conversation on ethics in the digital age.

Promoting bioethics in the Eastern Mediterranean Region (Editorial).

Bioethics addresses a broad swathe of human enquiry, ranging from the allocation of scarce health resources to cultural sensitivities over reproductive health. Historically an increasing number of nations have created official bodies to provide advice to their executive and legislative branches, and often to the general public, about bioethics. Termed "National Ethics / Bioethics Committees", such bodies are appointed by ministries of health, education, science and technology, or legislatures to synthesize available evidence and offer recommendations about concurrent issues in bioethics, especially as such issues bear on potential needs to develop national policies and to adopt legislations. Health research has grown substantially in the low- and middle-income countries, including the Eastern Mediterranean Region (EMR), with clinical trial activity in some of its nations tripling between 2008 and 2011. However, indigenous scholarship and expertise are essential when examining the complex debates over how health research is conducted and whether effective oversight can be promoted in resource-limited Member States. Moreover, the notion of ethics in any capacity draws in sensitive matters pertaining to cultural and religious values, and applying western concepts of bioethics in their entirety, may not always be an appropriate course to take.