Research ethics committee decision-making in relation to an efficient neonatal trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gale C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5537508 | biostudies-other | 2017 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
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: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: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: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:Ethical evaluation of projects involving animal testing is mandatory within the EU and other countries. However, the evaluation process has been subject to criticism, e.g., that the committees are not balanced or democratic enough and that the utilitarian weighting of harm and benefit that is normally prescribed is difficult to carry out in practice. In this study, members of Swedish Animal Ethics Committees (AECs) completed a survey aiming to further investigate the decision-making process. We found that researchers and animal laypersons make significantly different ethical judgments, and hold disparate views on which ethical aspects are the most relevant. Researchers were significantly more content than laypersons with the functioning of the committees, indicating that the ethical model used suited their preferences better. We argue that in order to secure a democratic and proper ethical evaluation, the expectations of a scientific discourse must be acknowledged, while giving room for different viewpoints. Further, to fulfil the purpose of the project evaluations and meet public concern, the functions of the different AEC member categories need to be clarified. We suggest that one way of achieving a more thorough, balanced and inclusive ethical evaluation is to allow for more than one model of ethical reasoning.
| S-EPMC6210494 | 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:IntroductionMost medical decisions in pediatrics involve surrogate decision-makers. Because of this, pediatricians are even more likely to encounter ethical conflicts and dilemmas surrounding medical decision-making. Pediatricians continue to report a lack of preparedness to manage situations when conflicts and dilemmas arise, suggesting a gap in education. In response to this gap, we developed a module on the ethics of medical decision-making focused on pediatrics.MethodsThe Ethics of Pediatric and Young Adult Medical Decision-Making module included three case-based, small-group sessions on decision-making capacity and advance directives, parental decision-making, and informed consent and adolescent assent. Session materials were developed based on expert opinion and previously published content. Sessions were developed for pediatric residents; however, medical students rotating on pediatrics also participated in most sessions. Trainees completed pre- and postsession assessments of comfort and understanding.ResultsAn average of 19 learners completed each session. Understanding of ethical principles increased after each session. Seventy-nine percent of trainees reported increased understanding of ethical principles related to decision-making capacity, and 88% reported increased understanding of standards of surrogate decision-making. Following the session on obtaining consent and assent, 71% of trainees reported comfort obtaining consent compared to 57% reporting comfort obtaining assent.DiscussionThis module successfully increased trainee comfort with many ethical issues related to pediatric medical decision-making. Areas where trainee comfort was still low postsession-specifically, obtaining consent or assent-are content areas where actual practice of these psychomotor skills is likely necessary.
| S-EPMC7880251 | biostudies-literature
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: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: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