COVID-19 and Moral Imperialism in Multinational Clinical Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Hellmann F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7188637 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
COVID-19 and Moral Imperialism in Multinational Clinical Research.
Hellmann Fernando F Williams-Jones Bryn B Garrafa Volnei V
Archives of medical research 20200429 6
A TV debate in April 2020 between two French doctors regarding the benefits of testing a coronavirus vaccine in Africa where there are no masks or treatments available has led to international criticism. This case highlights a problematic ethical double standard in multinational clinical research: trials that would be considered unethical in high income countries (e.g., placebo-controlled where there is an existing treatment) are nonetheless justified in low-and-middle-income countries because t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:IntroductionWhile the global COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the entire humanity and health systems, it also triggered researchers to urgently perform clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of many agents and modalities to combat COVID-19. As of April 22, over 650 clinical studies have been registered both in USA and internationally. Results from these studies are also coming at a brisk pace in this unprecedented emergency.Areas coveredWe searched the NCI website and Medline and summarize various national and international clinical trials and summarize few of the pivotal ones in this paper, including those specific to oncology population. Two hundred and eighty four studies are actively recruiting adults and children with confirmed COVID-19, including 25 are early-phase I/phase I, 72 phase II, 58 phase III, 12 phase IV, and 31 other trials. They can be categorized into four groups: drugs that combat SARS-CoV-2, immunomodulatory agents to counteract cytokine storm, convalescence plasma therapies and vaccines trials.Expert opinionIt is hoped that these efforts will results in a successful treatment to COVID-19, especially in a timely fashion before the second pandemic expected in fall. It is essential to acknowledge the devotion and hard work of the clinical research team and clinical research volunteers.
| S-EPMC7326327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic began in early 2020 with major health consequences. While a need to disseminate information to the medical community and general public was paramount, concerns have been raised regarding the scientific rigor in published reports. We performed a systematic review to evaluate the methodological quality of currently available COVID-19 studies compared to historical controls. A total of 9895 titles and abstracts were screened and 686 COVID-19 articles were included in the final analysis. Comparative analysis of COVID-19 to historical articles reveals a shorter time to acceptance (13.0[IQR, 5.0-25.0] days vs. 110.0[IQR, 71.0-156.0] days in COVID-19 and control articles, respectively; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, methodological quality scores are lower in COVID-19 articles across all study designs. COVID-19 clinical studies have a shorter time to publication and have lower methodological quality scores than control studies in the same journal. These studies should be revisited with the emergence of stronger evidence.
| S-EPMC7878793 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic continues to pose significant health, economic, and social challenges. Given that many of these challenges have moral relevance, the present studies investigate whether the COVID-19 pandemic is influencing moral decision-making and whether moralisation of behaviours specific to the crisis predict adherence to government-recommended behaviours. Whilst we find no evidence that utilitarian endorsements have changed during the pandemic at two separate timepoints, individuals have moralised non-compliant behaviours associated with the pandemic such as failing to physically distance themselves from others. Importantly, our findings show that this moralisation predicts sustained individual compliance with government-recommended behaviours.
| S-EPMC8854988 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic has raised complex moral dilemmas that have been the subject of extensive public debate. Here, we study how people judge a set of controversial actions related to the crisis: relaxing data privacy standards to allow public control of the pandemic, forbidding public gatherings, denouncing a friend who violated COVID-19 protocols, prioritizing younger over older patients when medical resources are scarce, and reducing animal rights to accelerate vaccine development. We collected acceptability judgements in an initial large-scale study with participants from 10 Latin American countries (N = 15 420). A formal analysis of the intrinsic correlations between responses to different dilemmas revealed that judgements were organized in two dimensions: one that reflects a focus on human life expectancy and one that cares about the health of all sentient lives in an equitable manner. These stereotyped patterns of responses were stronger in people who endorsed utilitarian decisions in a standardized scale. A second pre-registered study performed in the USA (N = 1300) confirmed the replicability of these findings. Finally, we show how the prioritization of public health correlated with several contextual, personality and demographic factors. Overall, this research sheds light on the relationship between utilitarian decision-making and moral responses to the COVID-19 crisis.
| S-EPMC8439416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and purposeCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is associated with a small but clinically significant risk of stroke, the cause of which is frequently cryptogenic. In a large multinational cohort of consecutive COVID-19 patients with stroke, we evaluated clinical predictors of cryptogenic stroke, short-term functional outcomes and in-hospital mortality among patients according to stroke etiology.MethodsWe explored clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of consecutively evaluated patients 18 years of age or older with acute ischemic stroke (AIS) and laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 from 31 hospitals in 4 countries (3/1/20-6/16/20).ResultsOf the 14.483 laboratory-confirmed patients with COVID-19, 156 (1.1%) were diagnosed with AIS. Sixty-one (39.4%) were female, 84 (67.2%) white, and 88 (61.5%) were between 60 and 79 years of age. The most frequently reported etiology of AIS was cryptogenic (55/129, 42.6%), which was associated with significantly higher white blood cell count, c-reactive protein, and D-dimer levels than non-cryptogenic AIS patients (p</=0.05 for all comparisons). In a multivariable backward stepwise regression model estimating the odds of in-hospital mortality, cryptogenic stroke mechanism was associated with a fivefold greater odds in-hospital mortality than strokes due to any other mechanism (adjusted OR 5.16, 95%CI 1.41-18.87, p = 0.01). In that model, older age (aOR 2.05 per decade, 95%CI 1.35-3.11, p < 0.01) and higher baseline NIHSS (aOR 1.12, 95%CI 1.02-1.21, p = 0.01) were also independently predictive of mortality.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that cryptogenic stroke among COVID-19 patients carries a significant risk of early mortality.
| S-EPMC7846488 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Novel moral norms peculiar to the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in tension between maintaining one's preexisting moral priorities (e.g., loyalty to one's family and human freedoms) and avoiding contraction of the COVID-19 disease and SARS COVID-2 virus. By drawing on moral foundations theory, the current study questioned how the COVID-19 pandemic (or health threat salience in general) affects moral decision making. With two consecutive pilot tests on three different samples (ns ≈ 40), we prepared our own sets of moral foundation vignettes which were contextualized on three levels of health threats: the COVID-19 threat, the non-COVID-19 health threat, and no threat. We compared the wrongness ratings of those transgressions in the main study (N = 396, M age = 22.47). The results showed that the acceptability of violations increased as the disease threat contextually increased, and the fairness, care, and purity foundations emerged as the most relevant moral concerns in the face of the disease threat. Additionally, participants' general binding moral foundation scores consistently predicted their evaluations of binding morality vignettes independent of the degree of the health threat. However, as the disease threat increased in the scenarios, pre-existing individuating morality scores lost their predictive power for care violations but not for fairness violations. The current findings imply the importance of contextual factors in moral decision making. Accordingly, we conclude that people make implicit cost-benefit analysis in arriving at a moral decision in health threatening contexts.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12144-021-01941-y.
| S-EPMC8173317 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a grave public health crisis, causing massive disruption to daily life. Dermatology clinical trials in psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and hidradenitis have been suspended, terminated, or otherwise disrupted. Clinical investigators need to embrace a COVID-19 new normal and adjust research procedures to mitigate the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and depleting personal protective equipment while maintaining scientific rigor.
| S-EPMC7466954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few studies have explored the challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic has presented for Clinical Research Units (CRUs), the solutions that have been implemented, and the changes that have been made in the operational guidelines for these entities. This study sought to identify and document common practices implemented by CRUs around the United States of America (USA) when addressing the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic. This descriptive study utilized a non-experimental mixed-methods approach and gathered data from representatives of 43 CRUs across the USA. An online survey was followed by in-depth interviews. The findings show that challenges faced from the COVID-19 pandemic, changes made to daily operations, and lessons learned are very similar across CRUs. Although most CRUs never stopped performing essential clinical research, many adapted to the pandemic by engaging in virtual visits, and many played key roles in administering and supporting both COVID-19 therapeutic and vaccine trials. Follow-up interviews showed that processes for formal approval and reopening were similar across CRUs. In addition to highlighting the significance of the role played by CRUs during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study addresses the relevance of CRUs and lays the groundwork for future conversations on the importance of these units.
| S-EPMC8503072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have advocated numerous social distancing measures, and compliance with these has likely saved millions of lives globally. In an online sample drawn from the U.S. and Canada (N = 209), participants completed measures of political orientation, moral foundations, and COVID-19 social distancing attitudes and behaviours. A more left-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the individualizing moral foundations were significantly related to more positive social distancing attitudes, and greater self-reported compliance with relevant restrictions. A more right-wing political orientation, and greater endorsement of the binding and economic liberty foundations were associated with less positive attitudes and reduced compliance. In a series of mediation analyses, the relationships between political orientation and various social distancing measures were significantly mediated by variations in participants' moral foundations, particularly their endorsement of economic liberty and the individualizing foundations. Further data indicated that the perceived persuasiveness of messages based on each moral foundation advocating for continued social distancing was significantly related to both participants' moral values and their political orientation. Findings are discussed in terms of understanding politicized differences around social distancing as partly reflecting differential valuation of the moral foundations, and in creating effective public health messaging regarding compliance.
| S-EPMC9232135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background The COVID-19 pandemic has put heavy pressure on nurses. Psychiatric nurses are also exposed to moral distress due to the special conditions of psychiatric patients and patient’s lack of cooperation in observing health protocols. This study has been conducted to explore and describe factors that caused moral distress in Iranian psychiatric nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Method This qualitative study with a conventional content analysis approach involved 12 nurses at the Shiraz University of Medical Sciences in Iran. This study was conducted in the winter of 2021. Data collection was performed by semi-structured interviews, data analysis was performed based on the five steps of Graneheim and Lundman. Results By continuous comparison and integration of data, 17 subcategories, 8 subcategories, and 3 categories were extracted from 252 initial codes. The causes of moral distress in psychiatric nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic were identified as emotional responses (Fear and Doubt), relational factors (Nurses’ Relationship with Each Other, Nurse-physician Relationship, and Relationship whit Patients), and Institutional factors (Lack of Attention to Health Instructions, Failure to complete the treatment process for patients and Institutional Policies). Conclusion New dimensions of the causes of moral distress associated with the COVID- 19 pandemic are discovered in this study. Managers and planners should equip psychiatric hospitals with isolation facilities and Personal Protection Equipment for patients and nurses. Strengthening the ethical climate by improving communication skills and individual nursing empowerment to prevent moral distress is recommended. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-023-01048-y.
| S-EPMC9936116 | biostudies-literature