Evolution of Ethics in Clinical Research and Ethics Committee.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Das NK
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5527717 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul-Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo present empirical data on how the variation in regulating clinical research and patient care was perceived in Finland between 2009 and 2012.MethodsNotes of interviews with 22 research ethics committee (REC) chairpersons were analyzed to identify whether differences in the regulation of clinical research and patient care were addressed. REC chairpersons' opinions on three imaginary cases of clinical research projects challenging current research ethics rules (vignettes) were requested with a questionnaire; 18 of the 22 interviewed chairpersons responded.ResultsBased on REC chairpersons' interviews, the differences between care and research regulation were not considered important issues in Finland. In the vignettes, REC chairpersons' assumptions on how their REC would decide varied in regard to allowing research without informed consent, while solutions that are not allowed by current law were even anticipated. Mostly, but not always, the chairpersons' own personal view agreed with their REC.ConclusionsThe distinction between care and research regulation has not been publicly challenged by Finnish RECs, even though it is a challenge when research relevant to health care is carried out. There is a need for debate and changes in laws and practices.
| S-EPMC3987656 | 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:OBJECTIVE:The general purpose for ethics consultations is to deliberate on issues on medical and scientific research and act towards the safeguard of the patient's rights and dignity. With the implementation of European Union (EU) Regulation 536/2014 on clinical trials and cost and time-optimization, the nature of consultations and the bodies they are carried out might be to some extent affected. Accordingly, we sought to gain an updated perspective on the current role and current practices of ethics consultations nationwide in both clinical and research settings. METHODS:The study was carried forth by a three-step mixed-method approach: i) review of policies/regulations for ethics committee (EC) nationwide; ii) a structured survey on ethics consultation activity completed by each EC during 2016; iii) incorporated into the third part, a qualitative assessment with a selected sample of 8 key-informants for a semi-structured interview, discussing EC history, the ethics consultation function, and the professional experience of consultants. RESULTS:Review of the policies/regulations promoted by ECs showed that 72,6% (n = 69) of all the ECs (N = 95) being actually capable of providing ethics consultation service by policy. 71 ECs (74.7%) responded to the survey on ethics consultation requests; among them, 48 (67.6%) provided ethics consultations of which 23 (23/48) actually received requests for this service in the year 2016. Many ECs did not have a structured database in place to provide precise figures of requests received in the last year nor of their contents. CONCLUSION:To date, ethics consultation in clinical and research practice is largely underappreciated and not well understood by users. The consultants themselves lack a comprehensive vision of work carried out in their field, and bioethics training programs to keep them updated. Despite clinical ethics consultation services should not necessarily be mandatory, following the recent EU Regulation on clinical trials, institutional ethics consultation bodies should be re-evaluated.
| S-EPMC6936824 | 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: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:Randomised controlled trials, a gold-standard approach to reduce uncertainties in clinical practice, are growing in cost and are often slow to recruit. We determined whether methodological approaches to facilitate large, efficient clinical trials were acceptable to UK research ethics committees (RECs).We developed a protocol in collaboration with parents, for a comparative-effectiveness, randomised controlled trial comparing two widely used blood transfusion practices in preterm infants. We incorporated four approaches to improve recruitment and efficiency: (i) point-of-care design using electronic patient records for patient identification, randomisation and data acquisition, (ii) short two-page information sheet; (iii) explicit mention of possible inclusion benefit; (iv) opt-out consent with enrolment as the default. With the support of the UK Health Research Authority, we submitted an identical protocol to 12 UK REC.RECs in the UK.Number of REC granting favourable opinions.The use of electronic patient records was acceptable to all RECs; one REC raised concerns about the short parent information sheet, 10 about inclusion benefit and 9 about opt-out consent. Following responses to queries, nine RECs granted a favourable final opinion and three rejected the application because they considered the opt-out consent process invalid.A majority of RECs in this study consider the use of electronic patient record data, short information sheets, opt-out consent and mention of possible inclusion benefit to be acceptable in neonatal comparative-effectiveness research. We identified a need for guidance for RECs in relation to opt-out consent processes. These methods provide opportunity to facilitate large randomised controlled trials.
| S-EPMC5537508 | biostudies-other
Project description:Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.
| S-EPMC9714451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPremature discontinuation of clinical studies affects about 25% of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which raises concerns about waste of scarce resources for research. The risk of discontinuation of non-randomised prospective studies (NPSs) is yet unclear.ObjectivesTo compare the proportion of discontinued studies between NPSs and RCTs that received ethical approval.MethodsWe systematically surveyed prospective longitudinal clinical studies that were approved by a single REC in Freiburg, Germany between 2000 and 2002. We collected study characteristics, identified subsequent publications, and surveyed investigators to elucidate whether a study was discontinued and, if so, why.ResultsOf 917 approved studies, 547 were prospective longitudinal studies (306 RCTs and 241 NPSs). NPSs were on average smaller than RCTs, more frequently single centre and pilot studies, and less frequently funded by industry. NPSs were less frequently discontinued than RCTs: 32/221 (14%) versus 78/288 (27%, p<0.001, missing data excluded). Poor recruitment was the most frequent reason for discontinuation in both NPSs (36%) and RCTs (37%).ConclusionsCompared to RCTs, NPSs were at lower risk for discontinuation. Measures to reliably predict, sustain, and stimulate recruitment could prevent discontinuation of many RCTs but also of some NPSs.
| S-EPMC5085068 | biostudies-literature
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: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