Bioethical committees and data protection issues in Poland.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ligocka D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2423453 | biostudies-literature | 2008
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Bioethical committees and data protection issues in Poland.
Environmental health : a global access science source 20080605
In Poland there are only Regional Bioethical Committees. Unlike most EU countries Poland has no coordinating centre on bioethics for human research. However, the Ministry of Health and Welfare has established a Bioethics Appeals Committee.The functioning of the Bioethical Committees in Poland is regulated in detail by the Regulation of the Ministry of Health and Welfare of 1999. All regulations comply with important guidelines such as: the Helsinki Declaration, The Rules of Good Clinical Practic ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Bioethical and legal issues of three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting as the emerging field of biotechnology have not yet been widely discussed among bioethicists around the world, including Russia. The scope of 3D bioprinting includes not only the issues of the advanced technologies of human tissues and organs printing but also raises a whole layer of interdisciplinary problems of modern science, technology, bioethics, and philosophy. This article addresses the ethical and legal issues of bioprinting of artificial human organs.
| S-EPMC7557521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advances in science and technology has led to the rise of different issues in relation to human life and security as well as the environment. These issues also paved the way for the field of Bioethics with its principles aiming to uphold moral standards on these issues. This study aimed to test and modify the theoretical models of the factors influencing the conviction schemas of BS Biology Bioethics students of a state university toward bioethical issues. One hundred ten (110) undergraduate students were pre-tested and post-tested for comprehension of Bioethics principles, moral disengagement, and convictions toward bioethical issues. Identified personal factors were also retrieved for testing. Results showed that the Bioethics course has increased the participants’ comprehension of Bioethics principles, moral disengagement, and convictions. Stepwise multiple regression results revealed that anxiety, extraversion, exposure to media, and moral disengagement can predict pre-convictions. On the other hand, only moral disengagement was found to predict post-convictions. Furthermore, moral disengagement can be predicted by convictions before the course while anxiety, openness to change, and convictions were the predictors after the course. The proposed theoretical model was for tested goodness of fit using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) and acceptance was based on the model fit criteria. Since the proposed model was not found to fit the data, this was revised based on the results of multiple regression and correlation among exogenous variables. Three models were constructed and found to fit the data adequately. These models show the direct and indirect effects of personal factors and moral disengagement on convictions. The mediating effects of moral disengagement and convictions to each other were also shown. Findings further imply that the ability to understand the principles does not influence convictions, but rather moral disengagement has a greater influence on the said factor. Improving moral education by integrating Bioethics to the curriculum is recommended to further strengthen the moral judgement and reasoning of students. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40889-022-00149-3.
| S-EPMC9592866 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:The overall purposes of this first US national pilot study were to (1) test the feasibility of online administration of the Bioethical Issues in Biostatistical Consulting (BIBC) Questionnaire to a random sample of American Statistical Association (ASA) members; (2) determine the prevalence and relative severity of a broad array of bioethical violations requests that are presented to biostatisticians by investigators seeking biostatistical consultations; and (3) establish the sample size needed for a full-size phase II study. DESIGN:A descriptive survey as approved and endorsed by the ASA. PARTICIPANTS:Administered to a randomly drawn sample of 112 professional biostatisticians who were ASA members. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The 18 bioethical violations were first ranked by perceived severity scores, then categorised into three perceived severity subcategories in order to identify seven 'top tier concern violations' and seven 'second tier concern violations'. RESULTS:Methodologically, this phase I pilot study demonstrated that the BIBC Questionnaire, as administered online to a random sample of ASA members, served to identify bioethical violations that occurred during biostatistical consultations, and provided data needed to establish the sample size needed for a full-scale phase II study. The No. 1 top tier concern was 'remove or alter some data records in order to better support the research hypothesis'. The No. 2 top tier concern was 'interpret the statistical findings based on expectation, not based on actual results'. In total, 14 of the 18 BIBC Questionnaire items, as judged by a combination of 'severity of violation' and 'frequency of occurrence over past 5 years', were rated by biostatisticians as 'top tier' or 'second tier' bioethical concerns. CONCLUSION:This pilot study gives clear evidence that researchers make requests of their biostatistical consultants that are not only rated as severe violations, but further that these requests occur quite frequently.
| S-EPMC5695368 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This paper focuses on the ethical challenges presented by direct-to-consumer (DTC) digital psychotherapy services that do not involve oversight by a professional mental health provider. DTC digital psychotherapy services can potentially assist in improving access to mental health care for the many people who would otherwise not have the resources or ability to connect with a therapist. However, the lack of adequate regulation in this area exacerbates concerns over how safety, privacy, accountability, and other ethical obligations to protect an individual in therapy are addressed within these services. In the traditional therapeutic relationship, there are ethical obligations that serve to protect the interests of the client and provide warnings. In contrast, in a DTC therapy app, there are no clear lines of accountability or associated ethical obligations to protect the user seeking mental health services. The types of DTC services that present ethical challenges include apps that use a digital platform to connect users to minimally trained nonprofessional counselors, as well as services that provide counseling steered by artificial intelligence and conversational agents. There is a need for adequate oversight of DTC nonprofessional psychotherapy services and additional empirical research to inform policy that will provide protection to the consumer.
| S-EPMC5938696 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Oocyte freezing for 'social reasons' refers to women of reproductive age who are aiming to prolong, protect and secure their fertility. The term emerged to describe application of the highly promising technique, namely vitrification on oocytes retrieved through controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) from women intending to preserve their fertility for social reasons. These women opt to cryopreserve their oocytes at a point in their life when they need to postpone childbearing on the grounds of so called 'social' reasons. These reasons may include a highly driven career, absence of an adequate partner, financial instability, or personal reasons that make them feel unprepared for motherhood. This is a sensitive and multifaceted issue that entails medical, bioethical and socio-psychological components. The latest trend and the apparent increase noted on oocyte freezing for 'social reasons' has prompted our team of fertility specialists, embryologists, obstetricians, gynecologists and psychologists to proceed with a thorough, critical and all-inclusive comprehensive analysis. The wide range of findings of this analysis involve concerns of embryology and epigenetics that shape decisions made in the IVF laboratory, issues regarding obstetric and perinatal concerns on the pregnancy concluding from these oocytes and the respective delivery management and neonatal data, to the social and bioethical impact of this trend's application. This literature review refers to matters rising from the moment the 'idea' of this option is 'birthed' in a woman's thoughts, to proceeding and executing it clinically, up until the point of the pediatric follow up of the children born. We aim to shed light to the controversial issue of oocyte freezing, while objectively exhibit all aspects regarding this complex matter, as well as to respectfully approach how could the prospect of our future expectations be shaped from the impact of its application.
| S-EPMC6262467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background/aims Use of data monitoring committees to oversee clinical trials was first proposed nearly 50 years ago. Since then, data monitoring committee use in clinical trials has increased and evolved. Nonetheless, there are no well-defined criteria for determining the need for a data monitoring committee, and considerable variability exists in data monitoring committee composition and conduct. To understand and describe the role and function of data monitoring committees, and establish best practices for data monitoring committee trial oversight, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative-a public-private partnership to improve clinical trials-launched a multi-stakeholder project. Methods The data monitoring committee project team included 16 individuals charged with (1) clarifying the purpose of data monitoring committees, (2) identifying best practices for independent data monitoring committee conduct, (3) describing effective communication practices, and (4) developing strategies for training data monitoring committee members. Evidence gathering included a survey, a series of focus group discussions, and a 2-day expert meeting aimed at achieving consensus opinions that form the foundation of our data monitoring committee recommendations. Results We define the role of the data monitoring committee as an advisor to the research sponsor on whether to continue, modify, or terminate a trial based on periodic assessment of trial data. Data monitoring committees should remain independent from the sponsor and be composed of members with no relevant conflicts of interest. Representation on a data monitoring committee generally should include at least one clinician with expertise in the therapeutic area being studied, a biostatistician, and a designated chairperson who has experience with clinical trials and data monitoring. Data monitoring committee meetings are held periodically to evaluate the unmasked data from ongoing trials, but the content and conduct of meetings may vary depending on specific goals or topics for deliberation. To guide data monitoring committee conduct and communication plans, a charter consistent with the protocol's research design and statistical analysis plan should be developed and agreed upon by the sponsor and the data monitoring committee prior to patient enrollment. We recommend concise and flexible charters that explain roles, responsibilities, operational issues, and how data monitoring committee recommendations are generated and communicated. The demand for data monitoring committee members appears to exceed the current pool of qualified individuals. To prepare a new generation of trained data monitoring committee members, we encourage a combination of didactic educational programs, practical experience, and skill development through apprenticeships and mentoring by experienced data monitoring committee members. Conclusion Our recommendations address data monitoring committee use, conduct, communication practices, and member preparation and training. Furthermore recommendations form the foundation for ongoing efforts to improve clinical trial oversight and enhance the safety and integrity of clinical research. These recommendations serve as a call to action for implementation of best practices that benefit study participants, study sponsors, and society.
| S-EPMC5639979 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.
| S-EPMC10638853 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The first cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were reported in December 2019 and the outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 was declared a pandemic in March 2020 by the World Health Organization. This sparked a plethora of investigations into diagnostics and vaccination for SARS-CoV-2, as well as treatments for COVID-19. Since COVID-19 is a severe disease associated with a high mortality, clinical trials in this disease should be monitored by a data monitoring committee (DMC), also known as data safety monitoring board (DSMB). DMCs in this indication face a number of challenges including fast recruitment requiring an unusually high frequency of safety reviews, more frequent use of complex designs and virtually no prior experience with the disease. In this paper, we provide a perspective on the work of DMCs for clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19. More specifically, we discuss organizational aspects of setting up and running DMCs for COVID-19 trials, in particular for trials with more complex designs such as platform trials or adaptive designs. Furthermore, statistical aspects of monitoring clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19 are considered. Some recommendations are made regarding the presentation of the data, stopping rules for safety monitoring and the use of external data. The proposed stopping boundaries are assessed in a simulation study motivated by clinical trials in COVID-19.
| S-EPMC7833551 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHuman Subjects protections approaches, specifically those relating to research review board oversight, vary throughout the world. While all are designed to protect participants involved in research, the structure and specifics of these institutional review boards (IRBs) can and do differ. This variation affects all types of research, particularly implementation research.MethodsIn 2001, we began a series of inter-related studies on implementing evidence-based collaborative care for depression in Veterans Health Administration primary care. We have submitted more than 100 IRB applications, amendments, and renewals, and in doing so, we have interacted with 13 VA and University IRBs across the United States (U.S.). We present four overarching IRB-related themes encountered throughout the implementation of our projects, and within each theme, identify key challenges and suggest approaches that have proved useful. Where applicable, we showcase process aids developed to assist in resolving a particular IRB challenge.ResultsThere are issues unique to implementation research, as this type of research may not fit within the traditional Human Subjects paradigm used to assess clinical trials. Risks in implementation research are generally related to breaches of confidentiality, rather than health risks associated with traditional clinical trials. The implementation-specific challenges discussed are: external validity considerations, Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, risk-benefit issues, the multiple roles of researchers and subjects, and system-level unit of analysis.DiscussionSpecific aspects of implementation research interact with variations in knowledge, procedures, and regulatory interpretations across IRBs to affect the implementation and study of best methods to increase evidence-based practice. Through lack of unambiguous guidelines and local liability concerns, IRBs are often at risk of applying both variable and inappropriate or unnecessary standards to implementation research that are not consistent with the spirit of the Belmont Report (a summary of basic ethical principles identified by the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research), and which impede the conduct of evidence-based quality improvement research. While there are promising developments in the IRB community, it is incumbent upon implementation researchers to interact with IRBs in a manner that assists appropriate risk-benefit determinations and helps prevent the process from having a negative impact on efforts to reduce the lag in implementing best practices.
| S-EPMC2276514 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical trial registries have been established as a form of public accountability. Sponsors ought to register their trials promptly and accurately, but this is not always done. Some of the problems include non-registration of trials, registration of trials with incomplete information, and non-reporting of trial results on time. In this study we enumerate or quantify some quality issues with respect to Principal Investigator (PI) and Responsible Party data.MethodsWe analyzed interventional trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov. Using certain selection criteria, we started with 112,013 records, and then applied further filters. The trial had to (a) start between 1 January 2005 and 31 December 2014, (b) include a "drug" or "biological" in the "intervention" field, (c) be registered with an American authority, and (d) list a real person's name as investigator and also his or her role in the study.ResultsWe identified four categories of errors in the ClinicalTrials.gov records. First, some data were missing. The name of the investigator, or his or her role, was missing in 12% of 35,121 trials. In examining 71,359 pairs of names and roles, 17% of the "names" were found to be not those of real persons, but instead junk information. Second, there were variations in a large number of names. We identified 19 categories of variants. We determined that 13% of the names had variants that could not be resolved using a program. Third, some trials listed many PIs each, although only one such person holds overall responsibility for the trial and therefore not more than one person should be listed as PI. Fourth, in examining whether the PI's name was available as part of the Responsible Party tag, we found that in 1221 (3.5%) of 35,121 trials, the Responsible Party tag is absent.ConclusionsWe have outlined four categories of problems with data hosted by ClinicalTrials.gov and have quantified three of them. We also suggest how these errors could be prevented in future. It is important to carry out various kinds of audits of trial registries, in order to identify lacunae in the records, that they be addressed.
| S-EPMC6591874 | biostudies-literature