Dataset Information

Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Moodley K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7672173 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn recent years, tensions between IRBs and principal investigators (PIs) have risen, posing the needs to understand these conflicts, their underlying causes, and possible solutions. Researchers frequently complain about IRBs, but how IRBs perceive and respond to these criticisms is unclear.MethodsI conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews of two hours each with 46 chairs, administrators, and members. I contacted the leadership of 60 IRBs around the country (every fourth one in the list of the top 240 institutions by NIH funding) and interviewed IRB leaders from 34 of these institutions (response rate = 55%).ResultsInterviewees suggest that IRBs and PIs may view the nature and causes of these conflicts very differently and misunderstand each other, exacerbating tensions. Interviewees often recognized that they were seen by PIs as having power, but many IRBs saw themselves as not having it (e.g., because they are "merely following the regulations," and their process is "open," impersonal and unbiased, and they are themselves subject to higher administrative agencies), or as having it, but feeling it is small, and/or justified (e.g., because it is based on overriding goals and "the community values," and IRBs are trying to help PIs). Questions emerge as to whether IRBs do or should have power, and if so, what kind, how much, and when. Several factors may affect these tensions.ConclusionsThis study, the first to explore how IRBs perceive and understand conflicts and power relationships with PIs, suggests how IRBs and PIs may differ in viewing their respective roles and relationships, exacerbating tensions. These issues have critical implications for IRBs and PIs--to enhance their awareness and understanding of these conflicts (e.g., that IRBs may have discretionary power) and the underlying causes involved, and for increasing attention to research, practice, and policy concerning these areas of IRB functioning and interactions with PIs.

Project description:ObjectiveHealth-related research in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has grown over the years. However, concerns have been raised about the state of research ethics committees (RECs). This scoping review examines the literature on RECs for health-related research in SSA and identifies strategies that have been applied to strengthen the RECs. It focuses on three aspects of RECs: regulatory governance and leadership, administrative and financial capacity and technical capacity of members.DesignA scoping review of published literature, including grey literature, was conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute approach.Data sourcesBioOne, CINAHL, Embase (via Ovid), Education Abstracts, Global Health, Google Scholar, Jstor, OpenEdition (French), Philosopher's Index, PsycINFO, PubMed, Science Citation and Expanded Index (Web of Science), reference lists of included studies and specific grey literature sources.Eligibility criteriaWe included empirical studies on RECs for health-related research in SSA, covering topics on REC leadership and governance, administrative and financial capacity and the technical capacity of REC members. We included studies published between 01 January 2000 and 18 February 2022 and written in English, French, Portuguese or Swahili.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened the records. Data were extracted by one reviewer and cross-checked by another. Owing to the heterogeneity of included studies, thematic analysis was used.ResultsWe included 54 studies. The findings show that most RECs in SSA work under significant administrative and financial constraints, with few opportunities for capacity building for committee members. This has an impact on the quality of reviews and the overall performance of RECs. Although most countries have national governance systems for RECs, they lack regulations on accountability, transparency and monitoring of RECs.ConclusionsThis review provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on RECs for health-related research in SSA and contributes to our understanding of how RECs can be strengthened.