Governments are increasingly making use of field experiments to evaluate policy interventions in the spheres of education, public health and welfare. However, the research ethics literature is largely focused on the clinical context, leaving investigators, institutional review boards and government agencies with few resources to draw on to address the ethical questions they face regarding such experiments. In this article, we aim to help address this problem, investigating the conditions under which informed consent is required for ethical policy research conducted (...) or authorized by government. We argue that investigators need not secure participants' informed consent when conducting government policy experiments if: the government institution conducting or authorizing the experiment possesses a right to rule over the spheres of policy targeted by the research; and data collection does not involve the violation of participants' autonomy rights. (shrink)

Mosquito‐borne diseases take a tremendous toll on human populations, especially in developing nations. In the last decade, scientists have developed mosquitoes that have been genetically modified to prevent transmission of mosquito‐borne diseases, and field trials have been conducted. Some mosquitoes have been rendered infertile, some have been equipped with a vaccine they transmit to humans, and some have been designed to resist diseases. This article focuses on ethical issues raised by field trials of disease‐resistant, genetically modified mosquitoes. Some of these (...) issues include: protecting the public and the environment from harm, balancing benefits and risks, collaborating with the local community, avoiding exploitation, and safeguarding the rights and welfare of research subjects. One of the most difficult problems involves protecting the welfare of community members who will be impacted by the release of mosquitoes but who are not enrolled in the study as research subjects. To address this concern, field trials should take place only when the targeted disease is a significant public health problem in an isolated area, the benefits of the trial for the community are likely to outweigh the risks, community leaders approve of the trial, and there are measures in place to protect the welfare of un‐enrolled community members, such as informing the community about the study and offering free treatment to people who contract mosquito‐borne diseases. Since the justification of any field trial depends on a careful examination of the scientific and ethical issues, proposed studies should be evaluated on a case‐by‐case basis. (shrink)

BackgroundIn specific situations it may be necessary to make an exception to the general rule of informed consent for scientific research with an intervention. Earlier reviews only described subsets of arguments for exceptions to waive consent.MethodsHere, we provide a more extensive literature review of possible exceptions to the rule of informed consent and the accompanying arguments based on literature from 1997 onwards, using both Pubmed and PsycINFO in our search strategy.ResultsWe identified three main categories of arguments for the acceptability of (...) a consent waiver: data validity and quality, major practical problems, and distress or confusion of participants. Approval by a medical ethical review board always needs to be obtained. Further, we provide examples of specific conditions under which consent waiving might be allowed, such as additional privacy protection measures.ConclusionsThe reasons legitimized by the authors of the papers in this overview can be used by researchers to form their own opinion about requesting an exception to the rule of informed consent for their own study. Importantly, rules and guidelines applicable in their country, institute and research field should be followed. Moreover, researchers should also take the conditions under which they feel an exception is legitimized under consideration. After discussions with relevant stakeholders, a formal request should be sent to an IRB. (shrink)

Ethics has been identified as a central reason for choosing the stepped wedge trial over other kinds of trial designs. The potential advantage of the stepped wedge design is that it provides all arms of the trial with the active intervention over the course of the study. Some groups receive it later than others, but the study intervention is not withheld from any group. This feature of the stepped wedge design seems particularly ethically advantageous in two instances: when the study (...) intervention appears especially likely to be effective and when the consequences of not receiving the intervention may be dire. But despite an increase in the use of the stepped wedge design and appeals to its ethical superiority as the motivation for its selection, there has been limited attention to the stepped wedge trial in the ethics literature. In the following, I examine whether there are persuasive ethical reasons to prefer or to require a stepped wedge trial. I argue that while the stepped wedge design is ethically permissible, it is not morally superior to other kinds of trials. To this end, I examine the ethical justification for providing, withholding, and delaying interventions in research. (shrink)

Given that health systems research involves different aims, approaches, and methodologies as compared to more traditional clinical trials, the ethical issues present in HSR may be unique or particularly nuanced. This article outlines eight pertinent ethical issues that are particularly salient in HSR and argues that the ethical review process should be better tailored to ensure more efficient and appropriate oversight of HSR with adequate human protections, especially in low- and middle-income countries. The eight ethical areas we discuss include the (...) nature of intervention, types of research subjects, units of intervention and observation, informed consent, controls and comparisons, risk assessment, inclusion of vulnerable groups, and benefits of research. HSR involving human participants is necessary to ensure health systems strengthening and quality of care and to guide public policy intelligently. Health systems researchers must carefully define their intent and goals and openly clarify the values that may influence the premises and design of protocols. As new types of population-level research activities become more commonplace, it is critical that institutional review board and research ethics committee review processes evolve to evaluate these research protocols in ways that address the nuanced features of these studies. (shrink)

Owing to unique features of their design, cluster randomized trials complicate the interpretation of standard ethics guidelines. The recently published Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with detailed guidance on the design, conduct and review of cluster trials. The Ottawa statement sets out 15 recommendations, including guidance on the justification of study design, the need for research ethics committee review, the identification of research participants, obtaining informed consent, the (...) role of gatekeepers in protecting cluster interests, the assessment of benefits and harms, and the protection of vulnerable participants. (shrink)

Owing to unique features of their design, cluster randomized trials complicate the interpretation of standard ethics guidelines. The recently published Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials provides researchers and research ethics committees with detailed guidance on the design, conduct, and review of cluster trials. The Ottawa statement sets out 15 recommendations, including guidance on the justification of study design, the need for research ethics committee review, the identification of research participants, obtaining informed consent, the (...) role of gatekeepers in protecting cluster interests, the assessment of benefits and harms, and the protection of vulnerable participants. (shrink)

BackgroundTo investigate the factors related to approval after review by an Institutional Review Board, the structure equation model was used to analyze the latent variables ‘investigators’, ‘vulnerability’ and ‘review process’ for 221 proposals submitted to our IRB.MethodsThe vulnerability factor included vulnerable cases, and studies that involved drug tests and genetic analyses. The principal investigator factor included the license level of the PI and whether they belonged to our institution. The review factor included administration time, total review time, and revision frequency. (...) The revision frequency and total review time influenced the efficiency of review.ResultsThe latent variable of reviewing was the most important factor mediating the PIs and vulnerability to IRB review approval. The local PIs moderated with genetic study and revision frequency had an impact on the review process and mediated non-approval.ConclusionsBetter guidance of the investigators and reviewers might improve the efficiency with which IRBs function. (shrink)

The development of the CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing system has generated new possibilities for the use of gene drive constructs to reduce or suppress mosquito populations to levels that do not support disease transmission. Despite this prospect, social resistance to genetically modified organisms remains high. Gene drive open field research thus raises important questions regarding what is owed to those who may not consent to such research, or those could be affected by the proposed research, but whose consent is not solicited. (...) The precise circumstances under which informed consent must be obtained, and from whom, requires careful consideration. Furthermore, appropriate engagement processes should be central to any introduction of genetically modified mosquitos in proposed target settings. In this work, international guidance documents on informed consent and engagement are reviewed and applied to the genetically modified mosquito research context. Five analogous research endeavours that involve area-wide / open field experiments are reviewed. The approach of each in respect to the solicitation of individual informed consent and community engagement are highlighted. While the solicitation of individual informed consent in host settings of gene drive field trials may not be possible or feasible in some instances, local community and stakeholder engagement will be key to building trust towards the proposed conduct of such research. In this regard, the approaches taken by investigators and sponsors of political science field research and weather modification field research should be avoided. Rather, proponents of gene drive field research should look to the Eliminate Dengue field trials, cluster randomised trials, and pragmatic clinical trials for guidance regarding how the solicitation of individual informed consent of host communities ought to be managed, and how these communities ought to be engaged. (shrink)

Randomized controlled trial trial designs exist on an explanatory-pragmatic spectrum, depending on the degree to which a study aims to address a question of efficacy or effectiveness. As conceptualized by Schwartz and Lellouch in 1967, an explanatory approach to trial design emphasizes hypothesis testing about the mechanisms of action of treatments under ideal conditions, whereas a pragmatic approach emphasizes testing effectiveness of two or more available treatments in real-world conditions. Interest in, and the number of, pragmatic trials has grown substantially (...) in recent years, with increased recognition by funders and stakeholders worldwide of the need for credible evidence to inform clinical decision-making. This increase has been accompanied by the onset of learning healthcare systems, as well as an increasing focus on patient-oriented research. However, pragmatic trials have ethical challenges that have not yet been identified or adequately characterized. The present study aims to explore the views of key stakeholders with respect to ethical issues raised by the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. It is embedded within a large, four-year project that seeks to develop guidance for the ethical design and conduct of pragmatic trials. As a first step, this study will address important gaps in the current empirical literature with respect to identifying a comprehensive range of ethical issues arising from the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. By opening up a broad range of topics for consideration within our parallel ethical analysis, we will extend the current debate, which has largely emphasized issues of consent, to the range of ethical considerations that may flow from specific design choices. Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, across multiple jurisdictions, identified based on their known experience and/or expertise with pragmatic trials. We expect that the study outputs will be of interest to a wide range of knowledge users including trialists, ethicists, research ethics committees, journal editors, regulators, healthcare policymakers, research funders and patient groups. All publications will adhere to the Tri-Agency Open Access Policy on Publications. (shrink)

The type of research known as cluster randomized trials raises ethical questions not readily answered within the standard understanding of research ethics. What distinguishes a CRT is that it randomizes at the level of social groups rather than at the level of individual research participants: in a CRT, the regimen under study might be assigned to a village, hospital, or school. The organizational schemes of CRTs raise an assortment of fundamental ethical problems. In certain CRTs, the question of whether it (...) is possible to obtain individual informed consent is central. Also, if the intervention is offered at the level of a sizable social group, there is usually no realistic possibility for individuals to opt out of the trial. Other ethical questions raised by CRTs have to do with identifying the subjects of research, and indeed with whether “research” is occurring at all. (shrink)

Cluster randomised trials are an increasingly important methodological tool in health research but they present challenges to the informed consent requirement. In the relatively limited literature on the ethics of cluster research there is not much clarity about the reasons for which seeking informed consent in cluster randomised trials may be morally challenging. In this paper, I distinguish between the cases where informed consent in cluster trials may be problematic due to the distinct features of ‘population-based’ interventions, which have not (...) been adequately discussed in the research ethics literature, and the cases where informed consent may be problematic for reasons that investigators also encounter in other research designs. I claim that informed consent requirements in cluster trials should be adjusted to the level of risk involved, arguing for a more comprehensive notion of research risk than that currently found in the research ethics guidelines, and the amount of freedom to be sacrificed in relation to a particular research aim. I conclude that these two factors are the most important to consider when assessing whether a cluster study should proceed when informed consent is infeasible or difficult to obtain. (shrink)

One important ethical issue in randomised controlled trials is randomisation. Relatively little is known about how participating individuals and communities understand and perceive central aspects of randomisation such as equality, fairness, transparency and accountability in community-based trials. The aim of this study was to understand and explore study communities’ perspectives of the randomisation process in a cluster RCT in rural Zambia studying the effectiveness of different support packages for adolescent girls on early childbearing. In this explorative study, in-depth semi-structured interviews (...) were carried out in 2018 with 14 individuals who took part in the randomisation process of the Research Initiative to Support the Empowerment of Girls project in 2016 and two traditional leaders. Two of the districts where the trial is implemented were purposively selected. Interviews were audio recorded and fully transcribed. Data were analysed by coding and describing emergent themes. The understanding of the randomisation process varied. Some respondents understood that randomisation was conducted for research purposes, but most of them did not. They had trouble distinguishing research and aid. Generally, respondents perceived the randomisation process as transparent and fair. However, people thought that there should not have been a “lottery” because they wanted all schools to receive equal or balanced benefits of the interventions. Randomisation was misunderstood by most respondents. Perceived procedural fairness was easier to realize than substantive fairness. Researchers working on Cluster Randomised Controlled Trials should consider carefully how to explain randomisation. (shrink)

Institutional review boards distinguish health care quality improvement and health care quality improvement research based primarily on the rigor of the methods used and the purported generalizability of the knowledge gained. Neither of these criteria holds up upon scrutiny. Rather, this apparently false dichotomy may foster under-protection of participants in QI projects and over-protection of participants within QIR.