Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Harding A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3261947 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Humanitarian agencies are increasingly engaged in research in conflict and post-conflict settings. This is justified by the need to improve the quality of assistance provided in these settings and to collect evidence of the highest standard to inform advocacy and policy change. The instability of conflict-affected areas, and the heightened vulnerability of populations caught in conflict, calls for careful consideration of the research methods employed, the levels of evidence sought, and ethical requirements. Special attention needs to be placed on the feasibility and necessity of doing research in conflict-settings, and the harm-benefit ratio for potential research participants.
| S-EPMC2717053 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4838154 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Stem cell research and related initiatives in regenerative medicine, cell-based therapy, and tissue engineering have generated considerable scientific and public interest. Researchers are applying stem cell technologies to chest medicine in a variety of ways: using stem cells as models for drug discovery, testing stem cell-based therapies for conditions as diverse as COPD and cystic fibrosis, and producing functional lung and tracheal tissue for physiologic modeling and potential transplantation. Although significant scientific obstacles remain, it is likely that stem cell-based regenerative medicine will have a significant clinical impact in chest medicine. However, stem cell research has also generated substantial controversy, posing a variety of ethical and regulatory challenges for research and clinical practice. Some of the most prominent ethical questions related to the use of stem cell technologies in chest medicine include (1) implications for donors, (2) scientific prerequisites for clinical testing and use, (3) stem cell tourism, (4) innovation and clinical use of emerging stem cell-based interventions, (5) responsible translation of stem cell-based therapies to clinical use, and (6) appropriate and equitable access to emerging therapies. Having a sense of these issues should help to put emerging scientific advances into appropriate context and to ensure the responsible clinical translation of promising therapeutics.
| S-EPMC4364318 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Numerous arguments have been advanced for broadly sharing de-identified, participant-level clinical trials data, and trial sponsors and journals are increasingly requiring it. However, data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials presents ethical challenges related to the use of waivers or alterations of informed consent for some pragmatic clinical trials and corresponding limitations of informed consent to guide sharing decisions; the potential for data sharing in pragmatic clinical trials to present risks not only for individual patient-subjects, but also for health systems and the clinicians within them; sharing of data from electronic health records instead of data newly collected for research purposes; and researchers' limited capacity to control sensitive data within an electronic health record and potential implications of such limits for meeting obligations inherent to Certificates of Confidentiality. These challenges raise questions about the extent to which traditional research ethics governance structures are capable of guiding decisions about pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. This article identifies and examines these ethical challenges for pragmatic clinical trial data sharing. We suggest several areas for future empirical scholarship, including the need to identify patient and public attitudes regarding pragmatic clinical trial data sharing as well as to assess the demand for pragmatic clinical trial data and the correspondingly likely benefit of such sharing. Further conceptual work is also needed to explore how requirements to respect patient-subjects about whom data are shared in the context of pragmatic clinical trials should be understood, particularly in the absence of informed consent for initial research activities, and the appropriate balance between promoting the generation of socially valuable knowledge and respecting autonomy.
| S-EPMC10267884 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAmerican Indians/Alaska Natives have the highest commercial tobacco use in the United States, resulting in higher tobacco-caused deaths and diseases than the general population. Some American Indians/Alaska Natives use commercial tobacco for ceremonial as well as recreational uses. Because federally recognized Tribal lands are sovereign, they are not subject to state cigarette taxes and smoke-free laws. This study analyzes tobacco industry promotional efforts specifically targeting American Indians/Alaska Natives and exploiting Tribal lands to understand appropriate policy responses in light of American Indians'/Alaska Natives' unique sovereign status and culture.MethodsWe analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents available at the Truth Tobacco Documents Library (https://industrydocuments.library.ucsf.edu/tobacco/).ResultsTobacco companies used promotional strategies targeting American Indians/Alaska Natives and exploiting Tribal lands that leveraged the federally recognized Tribes' unique sovereign status exempting them from state cigarette taxes and smoke-free laws, and exploited some Tribes' existing traditional uses of ceremonial tobacco and poverty. Tactics included price reductions, coupons, giveaways, gaming promotions, charitable contributions, and sponsorships. In addition, tobacco companies built alliances with Tribal leaders to help improve their corporate image, advance ineffective Youth Smoking Prevention programs, and defeat tobacco control policies.ConclusionsThe industry's promotional tactics likely contribute to disparities in smoking prevalence and smoking-related diseases among American Indians//Alaska Natives. Proven policy interventions to address these disparities including tobacco price increases, cigarette taxes, comprehensive smoke-free laws, and industry denormalization campaigns to reduce smoking prevalence and smoking-related disease could be considered by Tribal communities. The sovereign status of federally recognized Tribes does not prevent them from adopting these measures.ImplicationsAmerican Indians/Alaska Natives suffer disparities in smoking prevalence and smoking-related diseases as compared with other groups. The tobacco industry has used promotional tactics including price reductions, coupons and giveaways, casino and bingo promotions, charitable contributions and sponsorships, and so-called Youth Smoking Prevention (YSP) programs to specifically target American Indians/Alaska Natives and exploit Tribal sovereignty, which likely contribute to disparities in tobacco use and related diseases and deaths among this population. Tribal and public health policy makers should consider rejecting ineffective YSP programs and instead consider adopting proven policy interventions including tobacco price increases, cigarette and casino taxes, comprehensive smokefree laws, and anti-industry denormalization campaigns to reduce smoking and smoking-related disease.
| S-EPMC6588391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:Research around humanitarian crises, aid delivery, and the impact of these crises on health and well-being has expanded dramatically. Ethical issues around these topics have recently received more attention. We conducted a systematic literature review to synthesize the lessons learned regarding the ethics of research in humanitarian crises. Methods:We conducted a systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines to identify articles regarding the ethics of research in humanitarian contexts between January 1, 1997 and September 1, 2019. We analyzed the articles to extract key themes and develop an agenda for future research. Results:We identified 52 articles that matched our inclusion criteria. We categorized the article data into five categories of analysis: 32 were expert statements, 18 were case studies, 11 contained original research, eight were literature reviews and three were book chapters. All included articles were published in English. Using a step-wise qualitative analysis, we identified 10 major themes that encompassed these concepts and points. These major themes were: ethics review process (21 articles, [40.38%]); community engagement (15 articles [28.85%]); the dual imperative, or necessity that research be both academically sound and policy driven, clinical trials in the humanitarian setting (13 articles for each, [25.0%)]; informed consent (10 articles [19.23%]); cultural considerations (6 articles, [11.54%]); risks to researchers (5 articles, [9.62%]); child participation (4 articles [7.69%]); and finally mental health, and data ownership (2 articles for each [3.85%]). Conclusions:Interest in the ethics of studying humanitarian crises has been dramatically increasing in recent years. While key concepts within all research settings such as beneficence, justice and respect for persons are crucially relevant, there are considerations unique to the humanitarian context. The particular vulnerabilities of conflict-affected populations, the contextual challenges of working in humanitarian settings, and the need for ensuring strong community engagement at all levels make this area of research particularly challenging. Humanitarian crises are prevalent throughout the globe, and studying them with the utmost ethical forethought is critical to maintaining sound research principles and ethical standards.
| S-EPMC7245798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In response to community concerns, we used the Tribal Participatory Research framework in collaboration with 5 American-Indian communities in Washington, Idaho, and Montana to identify the appropriate criteria for aggregating health data on small tribes. Across tribal sites, 10 key informant interviews and 10 focus groups (n = 39) were conducted between July 2012 and April 2013. Using thematic analysis of focus group content, we identified 5 guiding criteria for aggregating tribal health data: geographic proximity, community type, environmental exposures, access to resources and services, and economic development. Preliminary findings were presented to focus group participants for validation at each site, and a culminating workshop with representatives from all 5 tribes verified our final results. Using this approach requires critical assessment of research questions and study designs by investigators and tribal leaders to determine when aggregation or stratification is appropriate and how to group data to yield robust results relevant to local concerns. At project inception, tribal leaders should be consulted regarding the validity of proposed groupings. After regular project updates, they should be consulted again to confirm that findings are appropriately contextualized for dissemination.
| S-EPMC4929243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine data sharing and number of publications coming from research databases that have been given a favourable opinion by UK National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committees (RECs).DesignCohort study.Inclusion criteria & settingAll research databases listed on the UK Health Research Authority's Assessment Review Portal (HARP) that had received a favourable ethics opinion as of January 2018.Main outcome measuresPublications and data access requests are either listed on HARP or notified through subsequent email correspondence.ResultsOut of 354 eligible databases, 34% had granted access requests and 40% had produced at least one peer-reviewed paper or conference abstract/talk. We could not establish contact with 9% of databases, and 19% reported no access requests or publications. Only 9% of databases were up to date with all annual reports. Email responses from database owners showed a range of attitudes towards data sharing.ConclusionLess than half of research databases that have received a favourable opinion from NHS research ethics committees share their data and produce publications. There is also considerable variability in the operation of research databases and understanding of the purpose of research databases. This work was hampered by incomplete records due mainly to researchers not submitting annual reports.
| S-EPMC7528358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Numerous mechanisms exist to incentivise researchers to share their data. This scoping review aims to identify and summarise evidence of the efficacy of different interventions to promote open data practices and provide an overview of current research. Methods: This scoping review is based on data identified from Web of Science and LISTA, limited from 2016 to 2021. A total of 1128 papers were screened, with 38 items being included. Items were selected if they focused on designing or evaluating an intervention or presenting an initiative to incentivise sharing. Items comprised a mixture of research papers, opinion pieces and descriptive articles. Results: Seven major themes in the literature were identified: publisher/journal data sharing policies, metrics, software solutions, research data sharing agreements in general, open science 'badges', funder mandates, and initiatives. Conclusions: A number of key messages for data sharing include: the need to build on existing cultures and practices, meeting people where they are and tailoring interventions to support them; the importance of publicising and explaining the policy/service widely; the need to have disciplinary data champions to model good practice and drive cultural change; the requirement to resource interventions properly; and the imperative to provide robust technical infrastructure and protocols, such as labelling of data sets, use of DOIs, data standards and use of data repositories.
| S-EPMC8808319 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Genomic research and biobanking has undergone exponential growth in Africa and at the heart of this research is the sharing of biospecimens and associated clinical data amongst researchers in Africa and across the world. While this move towards open science is progressing, there has been a strengthening internationally of data protection regulations that seek to safeguard the rights of data subjects while promoting the movement of data for the benefit of research. In line with this global shift, many jurisdictions in Africa are introducing data protection regulations, but there has been limited consideration of the regulation of data sharing for genomic research and biobanking in Africa. South Africa (SA) is one country that has sought to regulate the international sharing of data and has enacted the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) 2013 that will change the governance and regulation of data in SA, including health research data, once it is in force. To identify and discuss challenges and opportunities in the governance of data sharing for genomic and health research data in SA, a two-day meeting was convened in February 2019 in Cape Town, SA with over 30 participants with expertise in law, ethics, genomics and biobanking science, drawn from academia, industry, and government. This report sets out some of the key challenges identified during the workshop and the opportunities and limitations of the current regulatory framework in SA.
| S-EPMC7118803 | biostudies-literature