Citizens, Research Ethics Committee Members and Researchers' Attitude Toward Information and Consent for the Secondary Use of Health Data: Implications for Research Within Learning Health Systems.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cumyn A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8236664 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:In Switzerland, research with identifiable human tissue samples, and/or its accompanying data, must be approved by a research ethics committee (REC) before it can be allowed to take place. However, as the demand for such tissue has rapidly increased in recent years, and biobanks have been created to meet these needs, committees have had to deal with a growing number of such demands. Detailed instructions for evaluating every kind of tissue request are scarce. Committees charged with evaluating research protocols therefore sometimes face uncertainty in their decision-making. METHODS:We examine how a pool of Swiss REC members deal with a number of cases involving human tissue, in order to determine the standards they adhere to, and their understanding and implementation of existing laws and guidelines. RESULTS:There is considerable divergence in the approaches and decisions of Swiss REC members regarding human tissue sample requests, particularly concerning the issue of informed consent. Despite recent trends towards less strict consent requirements for biosample research, many of our respondents continue to employ demanding standards for researchers. The question of informed consent, and the circumstances in which it is required, continues to result in differences of opinion. CONCLUSIONS:While room for local and cultural interpretation is essential to the workings of an REC, misunderstanding of existing guidelines, or an absence of regulation in sensitive areas, will only lead to suboptimal functioning of the REC itself. Our data suggests that there is uncertainty and disagreement on the question of consent for human tissue sample, which existing laws and guidelines may not fully clarify. Methods to address these uncertainties should be implemented in order to ensure efficient and harmonious review of research protocols.
| S-EPMC6260886 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundApproval of the research proposal by an ethical review committee from both sponsoring and host countries is a generally agreed requirement in externally sponsored research.However, capacity for ethics review is not universal. Aim of this study was to identify opinions and views of the members serving in ethical review and ethics committees in Sri Lanka on informed consent, essential components in the information leaflet and the consent form.MethodsWe obtained ethical approval from UK and Sri Lanka. A series of consensus generation meetings on the protocol were conducted. A task oriented interview guide was developed. The interview was based on open-ended questionnaire. Then the participants were given a WHO checklist on informed consent and requested to rate the items on a three point scale ranging from extremely important to not important.ResultsTwenty-nine members from ethics committees participated. Majority of participants (23), believed a copy of the information leaflet and consent form, should accompany research proposal. Opinions about the items that should be included in the information leaflets varied. Participants identified 18 criteria as requirements in the information leaflet and 19 for the consent form. The majority, 20 (69%), believed that all research need ethical approval but identified limited human resource, time and inadequate capacity as constraints. Fifteen (52%) believed that written consent is not required for all research. Verbal consent emerged as an alternative to written consent. The majority of participants rated all components of the WHO checklist as important.ConclusionThe number of themes generated for the consent form (N = 18) is as many as for the information leaflet (N = 19) and had several overlaps. This suggests that the consent form should be itemized to reflect the contents covered in the information leaflet. The participants' opinion on components of the information leaflets and consent forms proved to be similar with WHO checklist on informed consent.
| S-EPMC2413248 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Human research ethics committees (HRECs) are evaluating increasing quantities of genomic research applications with complex ethical considerations. Genomic confidence is reportedly low amongst many non-genetics-experts; however, no studies have evaluated genomic confidence levels in HREC members specifically. This study used online surveys to explore genomic confidence levels, predictors of confidence, and genomics resource needs of members from 185 HRECs across Australia. Surveys were fully or partially completed by 145 members. All reported having postgraduate 94 (86%) and/or bachelor 15 (14%) degrees. Participants consisted mainly of researchers (n = 45, 33%) and lay members (n = 41, 30%), affiliated with either public health services (n = 73, 51%) or public universities (n = 31, 22%). Over half had served their HREC [Formula: see text]3 years. Fifty (44%) reviewed genomic studies [Formula: see text]3 times annually. Seventy (60%) had undertaken some form of genomic education. While most (94/103, 91%) had high genomic literacy based on familiarity with genomic terms, average genomic confidence scores (GCS) were moderate (5.7/10, n = 119). Simple linear regression showed that GCS was positively associated with years of HREC service, frequency of reviewing genomic applications, undertaking self-reported genomic education, and familiarity with genomic terms (p < 0.05 for all). Conversely, lay members and/or those relying on others when reviewing genomic studies had lower GCSs (p < 0.05 for both). Most members (n = 83, 76%) agreed further resources would be valuable when reviewing genomic research applications, and online courses and printed materials were preferred. In conclusion, even well-educated HREC members familiar with genomic terms lack genomic confidence, which could be enhanced with additional genomic education and/or resources.
| S-EPMC8633339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Questions have been raised over the acceptability of conducting human challenge studies in low and middle income countries (LMICs). Most of these concerns are based on theoretical considerations and there exists little data on the attitudes of stakeholders in these countries. This study examines the view of researchers and REC members in Thailand regarding the design and conduct of challenge studies in the country. A questionnaire was developed based on ethical frameworks for human challenge studies. The target respondents included those who had experience with health-related research at universities, non-university hospitals, and research institutes. A total of 240 respondents completed the on-line survey. In general, the respondents felt that the ethical issues raised by human challenge studies in LMICS do not differ significantly from those in high income countries, including: scientific rationale, safety, appropriate risks, and robust informed consent process. In contrast, issues that have been described as important for human challenge studies in LMICs were rated as having lower importance, including: a publicly available rationale, national priority, and community engagement. Responses did not vary significantly between researchers in different fields, nor between researchers and REC members. These findings provide an important perspective for assessing existing frameworks for human challenges studies in LMICs.
| S-EPMC6786649 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews.MethodWe conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey.ResultsWe collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky).ConclusionsWe discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.
| S-EPMC10472668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ethics are the moral values of human behavior and the principles which govern these values. The situation becomes challenging for a doctor when he assumes the role of researcher. The doctor-researcher has to serve both the roles and at times the zeal of an investigator has the potential to cloud the morality of the physician inside. It is very important to realize that exploiting the faith of patients is an offence that tantamount to a crime. Medical science is one discipline where the advancement of knowledge is hugely guided by research and mankind has benefitted from many experiments. However benefit and risk are the two faces of the same coin. Various unethical human experiments made us realize that the whims of researchers need to be reined and led to the evolution of the first guidelines for researcher, the Nuremberg code. Thereafter the Good Clinical Practice guidelines serve as the guiding doctrine of clinical research. The principles of ethics rest on the four pillars of autonomy, beneficence, justice, non-maleficence and recently two more pillars are added which includes, confidentiality and honesty. Ethics committees serve as a guardian of these principles. The multidisciplinary Ethics Committee ensures a competent review of the ethical aspects of the project proposal submitted and does it free from any bias or external influence. Ethical review of clinical trial applications follows a decentralized process in India, and requires Ethics Committee approval for each trial site. All Ethics committees have to be registered with Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) without which they cannot approve any clinical trial protocol and has come into effect from 25th February 2013.
| S-EPMC5527717 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectivesThe Plutocratic Proposal is a novel method of funding early phase clinical trials where a single donor funds the entire trial and in so doing secures a place on it. The aim of this study was to identify and explore concerns that may be raised by UK research ethics committees (RECs) when reviewing clinical trials funded in this way.DesignEmpirical ethics combining ethical analysis and qualitative data from three focus groups held online using Frith's symbiotic approach. Data were analysed using inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims and ethical analysis.Participants22 participants were recruited: 8 research patient public involvement group members, 7 REC chairs and 7 clinical researchers. All were based in the UK.ResultsWith one exception, participants thought the Plutocratic Proposal may be 'all things considered' acceptable, providing their concerns were met, primary of which was upholding scientific integrity. Other concerns discussed related to the acceptability of the donor securing a place on the trial including: whether this was an unfair distribution of benefits, disclosing the identity of the donor as the funder, protecting the donor from exploitation and funding a single study with multiple donors on the same terms. Some misgivings fell outside the usual REC purview: detrimental impact of donors of bad character, establishing the trustworthiness of the matching agency and its processes and optimising research funding and resources. Despite their concerns, participants recognised that because the donor funds the whole trial, others would also potentially benefit from participating.ConclusionsWe identified concerns about the Plutocratic Proposal. UK RECs may be open to approving studies if these can be addressed. Existing governance processes will do some of this work, but additional REC guidance, particularly in relation to donors securing a place on the trial, may be necessary to help RECs navigate ethical concerns consistently.
| S-EPMC9207757 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This is a multi-method, in-depth, three part qualitative study exploring the regulation and practice of secondary research with tissue and data in a high-income country. We explore and compare the perspectives of researchers, research ethics committees (RECs) and other relevant professionals (e.g. pathologists and clinicians). We focus on points of contention because they demonstrate misalignment between the expectations, values and assumptions of these stakeholders. METHODS:This is a multi-method study using observational research, focus groups and interviews with 42 participants (conducted 2016-2017) and analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS:Results are arranged under the following themes: consent; balancing the social value of the research with consent requirements; and harm. Our findings demonstrate different perspectives on the review process, styles of ethical reasoning and issues of concern. First, researchers and RECs disagreed about whether the cost of re-consenting patients satisfied the criterion of impracticability for consent waivers. Second, most researchers were skeptical that secondary research with already collected tissue and data could harm patients. Researchers often pointed to the harm arising from a failure to use existing material for research. RECs were concerned about the potential for secondary research to stigmatize communities. Third, researchers adopted a more consequentialist approach to decision-making, including some willingness to trade off the benefit of the research against the cost of getting consent; whereas RECs were more deontological and typically considered research benefit only after it had been established that re-consent was impractical. CONCLUSION:This research highlights ways in which RECs and researchers may be talking past each other, resulting in confusion and frustration. These finding provide a platform for realignment of the expectations of RECs and researchers, which could contribute to making research ethics review more effective.
| S-EPMC7406047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The review of human participant research by Research Ethics Committees (RECs) or Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) is a complex multi-faceted process that cannot be reduced to an algorithm. However, this does not give RECs/ IRBs permission to be inconsistent in their specific requirements to researchers or in their final opinions. In England the Health Research Authority (HRA) coordinates 67 committees, and has adopted a consistency improvement plan including a process called "Shared Ethical Debate" (ShED) where multiple committees review the same project. Committee reviews are compared for consistency by analysing the resulting minutes.We present a description of the ShED process. We report an analysis of minutes created by research ethics committees participating in two ShED exercises, and compare them to minutes produced in a published "mystery shopper" exercise. We propose a consistency score by defining top themes for each exercise, and calculating the ratio between top themes and total themes identified by each committee for each ShED exercise.Our analysis highlights qualitative differences between the ShED 19, ShED 20 and "mystery shopper" exercises. The quantitative measure of consistency showed only one committee across the three exercises with more than half its total themes as top themes (ratio of 0.6). The average consistency scores for the three exercises were 0.23 (ShED19), 0.35 (ShED20) and 0.32 (mystery shopper). There is a statistically significant difference between the ShED 19 exercise, and the ShED 20 and mystery shopper exercises.ShED exercises are effective in identifying inconsistency between ethics committees and we describe a scoring method that could be used to quantify this. However, whilst a level of inconsistency is probably inevitable in research ethics committee reviews, studies must move beyond the ShED methodology to understand why inconsistency occurs, and what an acceptable level of inconsistency might be.
| S-EPMC5704399 | biostudies-other
Project description:The informed-consent process should be one of meaningful information exchange between researchers and study participants. One of the responsibilities of research ethics committees is to oversee appropriate informed consent. The committee must consider various matters before deciding whether the process is appropriate, including the adequacy and completeness of the written information provided to study participants, and the process of obtaining informed consent. This study aimed to identify, quantitatively and qualitatively, consent-related issues in different types of malaria proposals submitted to the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Ethics Committee.This study reviewed proposal documentation submitted to two panels of the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Tropical Medicine, Mahidol University, from 2011 to 2015. The documentation included proposals, notifications to researchers of review outcomes and ethical issues of concern to committee members. Each element of the informed-consent process was identified and analyzed by study classification, design, and specimen use, including whether the study involved a vulnerable population. Summative content analysis was used to analyze patterns of common issues raised in reviews.Of the 112 proposals reviewed, 63 required an informed consent process. All researchers proposed communicating with their study participants; however, about two-thirds needed to improve their explanations of study procedures (study activities and specimen/data-collection process) to participants. About 40% of the proposals attracted comments on informed-consent process elements--risk and discomfort, vulnerable status, and compensation. Studies that planned to collect or use new/linked specimens raised more issues around informed consent than studies using linked data/records. Studies that involved vulnerable populations raised more issues than those that did not. The committee usually asked researchers to clarify, elaborate, revise, or paraphrase the consent process elements that were considered to involve inadequate information exchange between researcher and study participant.This study aimed to describe lessons for malaria researchers about common informed-consent process issues in different types of malaria proposals. The information and analysis of informed-consent elements should assist the preparation of malaria-research proposals.
| S-EPMC5556624 | biostudies-other