BackgroundMedical researchers in resource-constrained settings must make difficult moral decisions about the provision of ancillary care to participants where additional healthcare needs fall outside the scope of the research and are not provided for by the local healthcare system. We examined research stakeholder perceptions and experiences of ancillary care in biomedical research projects in Malawi. MethodsWe conducted 45 qualitative in-depth interviews with key research stakeholders: researchers, health officials, research ethics committee members, research participants and grants officers from international research funding (...) organisations. Thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the findings. FindingsAll stakeholders perceived the provision of ancillary care to have potential health benefits to study participants in biomedical research. However, they also had concerns, particularly related to the absence of guidance to support it. Some suggested that consideration for ancillary care provision could be possible on a case-by-case basis but that most of the support from research projects should be directed towards strengthening the public health system, emphasising public good above individual or personal benefits. Some researchers and ethics committee members raised concerns about potential tensions in terms of funding, for example balancing study demands with addressing participants’ additional health needs.ConclusionOur findings highlight the complexities and gaps in the guidance around the provision of ancillary care in Malawi and other resource-constrained settings more generally. To promote the provision of ancillary care, we recommend that national and international guidelines for research ethics include specific recommendations for resource-constrained settings and specific types of research. (shrink)

Glucocorticoids are understood to represent useful biomarkers of stress and can be measured in saliva, hair, and breastmilk. The collection of such biosamples is increasingly included in biobank and cohort studies. While collection is considered “non-invasive” by biomedical researchers (compared to sampling blood), community perspectives may differ. This cross-sectional, qualitative study utilising eight focus groups aimed to determine the feasibility and acceptability of collecting ostensibly “non-invasive” biological samples in Malawi. Breastfeeding women, couples, field workers, and healthcare providers were purposively sampled. (...) Data about prior understandings of, barriers to, and feasibility of “non-invasive” biosampling were analysed. Participants described biomaterials intended for “non-invasive” collection as sometimes highly sensitive, with sampling procedures raising community concerns. Sampling methods framed as physically “non-invasive” within biomedicine can consequently be considered socially “invasive” by prospective sample donors. Biomedical and community framings of “invasiveness’ can therefore diverge, and the former must respond to and be informed by the perspectives of the latter. Further, considerations of collection procedures are shaped by therapeutic misconceptions about the immediate health-related utility of biomedical and public health research. When researchers engage with communities about biosampling, they must ensure they are not furthering therapeutic misconceptions and actively seek to dispel these. (shrink)

In this paper, we discuss challenges associated with implementing a policy for Ancillary Care (AC) for related and unrelated (serious) adverse events during an Ebola vaccine trial conducted in a remote area of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Conducting clinical trials in resourceconstrained settings can raise context-related challenges that have implications for study participants’ health and wellbeing. During the Ebola vaccine study, three participants were injured in road traffic accidents, but there were unexpected difficulties when trying to apply the (...) AC policy. First, because of the nature of the adverse events, the insurer refused to cover the costs. Second, the AC policy did not address treatments by traditional medicine, even though traditional medicines are frequently used and highly trusted in the study community. This highlighted a contrast between the researchers’ well-intentioned AC approach and the participants’ legitimate preferences. The way in which researchers should address their responsibility to provide AC is not straightforward; it requires contextualization. Our experience highlights the importance of involving community representatives and the local ethics committee to ensure development of an AC policy that is culturally and ethically appropriate. Additionally, the insurance contract should clearly stipulate which adverse events are linked to the trial participation, and thus eligible for coverage, to avoid controversies when claims are made. (shrink)