BackgroundThere is general consensus internationally that unfair distribution of the benefits of research is exploitative and should be avoided or reduced. However, what constitutes fair benefits, and the exact nature of the benefits and their mode of provision can be strongly contested. Empirical studies have the potential to contribute viewpoints and experiences to debates and guidelines, but few have been conducted. We conducted a study to support the development of guidelines on benefits and payments for studies conducted by the KEMRI-Wellcome (...) Trust programme in Kilifi, Kenya.MethodsFollowing an initial broad based survey of cash, health services and other items being offered during research by all programme studies (n = 38 studies), interviews were held with research managers (n = 9), and with research staff involved in 8 purposively selected case studies (n = 30 interviewees). Interviews explored how these ‘benefits’ were selected and communicated, experiences with their administration, and recommendations for future guidelines. Data fed into a consultative workshop attended by 48 research staff and health managers, which was facilitated by an external ethicist.FindingsThe most commonly provided benefits were medical care (for example free care, and strengthened quality of care), and lunch or snacks. Most cash given to participants was reimbursement of transport costs (for example to meet appointments or facilitate use of services when unexpectedly sick), but these payments were often described by research participants as benefits. Challenges included: tensions within households and communities resulting from lack of clarity and agreement on who is eligible for benefits; suspicion regarding motivation for their provision; and confusion caused by differences between studies in types and levels of benefits.ConclusionsResearch staff differed in their views on how benefits should be approached. Echoing elements of international benefit sharing and ancillary care debates, some research staff saw research as based on goodwill and partnership, and aimed to avoid costs to participants and a commercial relationship; while others sought to maximise participant benefits given the relative wealth of the institution and the multiple community needs. An emerging middle position was to strengthen collateral or indirect medical benefits to communities through collaborations with the Ministry of Health to support sustainability. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 8, Page 31-33, August 2011.

Genomic biobanking research is undergoing exponential growth in Africa raising a host of legal, ethical and social issues. Given the scientific complexity associated with genomics, there is a growing recognition globally of the importance of science translation and community engagement for this type of research, as it creates the potential to build relationships, increase trust, improve consent processes and empower local communities. Despite this level of recognition, there is a lack of empirical evidence of the practise and processes for effective (...) CE in genomic biobanking in Africa. To begin to address this vacuum, 17 in-depth face to face interviews were conducted with South African experts in genomic biobanking research and CE to provide insight into the process, benefits and challenges of CE in South Africa. Emerging themes were analysed using a contextualised thematic approach. Several themes emerged concerning the conduct of CE in genomic biobanking research in Africa. Although the literature tends to focus on the local community in CE, respondents in this study described three different layers of stakeholder engagement: community level, peer level and high level. Community level engagement includes potential participants, community advisory boards and field workers; peer level engagement includes researchers, biobankers and scientists, while high level engagement includes government officials, funders and policy makers. Although education of each stakeholder layer is important, education of the community layer can be most challenging, due to the complexity of the research and educational levels of stakeholders in this layer. CE is time-consuming and often requires an interdisciplinary research team approach. However careful planning of the engagement strategy, including an understanding of the differing layers of stakeholder engagement, and the specific educational needs at each layer, can help in the development of a relationship based on trust between the research team and various stakeholder groups. Since the community layer often comprises vulnerable populations in low and middle income countries, co-development of innovative educational tools on genomic biobanking is essential. CE is clearly a component of a broader process best described as stakeholder engagement. (shrink)

Community engagement (CE) contributes to successful research. There is, however, a lack of literature on the effectiveness of different models of CE and, specifically, on CE strategies for the conduct of genomic research in sub-Saharan Africa. There is also a need for models of CE that transcend the recruitment stage of engaging prospective individuals and communities and embed CE throughout the research process and after the research has concluded. The qualitative study reported here was designed to address these knowledge gaps (...) and comprised of 36 key informant semi-structured interviews and fifteen focus groups with 50 participants. We interviewed selected stakeholders in genomic research in Nigeria: biomedical researchers, community rulers, opinion leaders, community health workers, and prospective research participants. We explored these stakeholders’ views on their understanding of community engagement, their expectations, experiences, and their opinions on acceptable processes of community consultation in genomic research. The methodological design, adapted from grounded theory, used the constant comparative method of data analysis; while normative conclusions were made using the symbiotic empirical ethics approach. Data analysis revealed five main themes important for successfully engaging communities in genomic research: effective communication, diversity of community gatekeeping, trust, cultural integration of research, and conservation of the research setting. From these themes, we have developed a four-stage model of community engagement that covers all stages of the research process; namely, the Community Approach, Intermediate phase, Collaboration and Post-research Cordiality model (CICP). This model could be used to improve the integration of CE in genomic research among local communities. (shrink)

Community engagement is increasingly recognized as a critical element of medical research, recommended by ethicists, required by research funders and advocated in ethics guidelines. The benefits of community engagement are often stressed in instrumental terms, particularly with regard to promoting recruitment and retention in studies. Less emphasis has been placed on the value of community engagement with regard to ethical good practice, with goals often implied rather than clearly articulated. This article outlines explicitly how community engagement can contribute to ethical (...) global health research by complementing existing established requirements such as informed consent and independent ethics review. The overarching and interlinked areas are respecting individuals, communities and stakeholders; building trust and social relationships; determining appropriate benefits; minimizing risks, burdens and exploitation; supporting the consent process; understanding vulnerabilities and researcher obligations; gaining permissions, approvals and building legitimacy and achieving recruitment and retention targets. (shrink)

Background Genomic biobanking research is undergoing exponential growth in Africa raising a host of legal, ethical and social issues. Given the scientific complexity associated with genomics, there is a growing recognition globally of the importance of science translation and community engagement for this type of research, as it creates the potential to build relationships, increase trust, improve consent processes and empower local communities. Despite this level of recognition, there is a lack of empirical evidence of the practise and processes for (...) effective CE in genomic biobanking in Africa. Methods To begin to address this vacuum, 17 in-depth face to face interviews were conducted with South African experts in genomic biobanking research and CE to provide insight into the process, benefits and challenges of CE in South Africa. Emerging themes were analysed using a contextualised thematic approach. Results Several themes emerged concerning the conduct of CE in genomic biobanking research in Africa. Although the literature tends to focus on the local community in CE, respondents in this study described three different layers of stakeholder engagement: community level, peer level and high level. Community level engagement includes potential participants, community advisory boards and field workers; peer level engagement includes researchers, biobankers and scientists, while high level engagement includes government officials, funders and policy makers. Although education of each stakeholder layer is important, education of the community layer can be most challenging, due to the complexity of the research and educational levels of stakeholders in this layer. Conclusion CE is time-consuming and often requires an interdisciplinary research team approach. However careful planning of the engagement strategy, including an understanding of the differing layers of stakeholder engagement, and the specific educational needs at each layer, can help in the development of a relationship based on trust between the research team and various stakeholder groups. Since the community layer often comprises vulnerable populations in low and middle income countries, co-development of innovative educational tools on genomic biobanking is essential. CE is clearly a component of a broader process best described as stakeholder engagement. (shrink)

There is wide agreement that community engagement is important for many research types and settings, often including interaction with ‘representatives’ of communities. There is relatively little published experience of community engagement in international research settings, with available information focusing on Community Advisory Boards or Groups (CAB/CAGs), or variants of these, where CAB/G members often advise researchers on behalf of the communities they represent. In this paper we describe a network of community members (‘KEMRI Community Representatives’, or ‘KCRs’) linked to a (...) large multi-disciplinary research programme on the Kenyan Coast. Unlike many CAB/Gs, the intention with the KCR network has evolved to be for members to represent the geographical areas in which a diverse range of health studies are conducted through being typical of those communities. We draw on routine reports, self-administered questionnaires and interviews to: 1) document how typical KCR members are of the local communities in terms of basic characteristics, and 2) explore KCR's perceptions of their roles, and of the benefits and challenges of undertaking these roles. We conclude that this evolving network is a potentially valuable way of strengthening interactions between a research institution and a local geographic community, through contributing to meeting intrinsic ethical values such as showing respect, and instrumental values such as improving consent processes. However, there are numerous challenges involved. Other ways of interacting with members of local communities, including community leaders, and the most vulnerable groups least likely to be vocal in representative groups, have always been, and remain, essential. (shrink)

Social justice has been identified as a foundational moral commitment for global health research ethics. Yet what a commitment to social justice means for community engagement in such research has not been critically examined. This paper draws on the rich social justice literature from political philosophy to explore the normative question: What should the ethical goals of community engagement be if it is to help connect global health research to social justice? Five ethical goals for community engagement are proposed that (...) promote well-being, agency, and self-development, particularly for those considered disadvantaged and marginalized. The paper also considers how key terms used in the proposed goals should be defined using existing theories of health and social justice. This analysis is done to give global health researchers and their partners a better idea of what the ethical goals mean. Patterns of convergence amongst different theories are identified that support relying on particular definitions of key terms. (shrink)

Community engagement has been recognised as an important aspect of the ethical conduct of biomedical research, especially when research is focused on ethnically or culturally distinct populations. While this is a generally accepted tenet of biomedical research, it is unclear what components are necessary for effective community engagement, particularly in the context of genomic research in Africa.

Internationally, calls for feedback of findings to be made an ‘ethical imperative’ or mandatory have been met with both strong support and opposition. Challenges include differences in issues by type of study and context, disentangling between aggregate and individual study results, and inadequate empirical evidence on which to draw. In this paper we present data from observations and interviews with key stakeholders involved in feeding back aggregate study findings for two Phase II malaria vaccine trials among children under the age (...) of 5 years old on the Kenyan Coast. In our setting, feeding back of aggregate findings was an appreciated set of activities. The inclusion of individual results was important from the point of view of both participants and researchers, to reassure participants of trial safety, and to ensure that positive results were not over-interpreted and that individual level issues around blinding and control were clarified. Feedback sessions also offered an opportunity to re-evaluate and re-negotiate trial relationships and benefits, with potentially important implications for perceptions of and involvement in follow-up work for the trials and in future research. We found that feedback of findings is a complex but key step in a continuing set of social interactions between community members and research staff (particularly field staff who work at the interface with communities), and among community members themselves; a step which needs careful planning from the outset. We agree with others that individual and aggregate results need to be considered separately, and that for individual results, both the nature and value of the information, and the context, including social relationships, need to be taken into account. (shrink)

HIV prevention is a critical health issue in Nigeria; a country that has one of the worst HIV epidemic profiles in the world. With 270,000 new infections in 2012, Nigeria is a prime site for HIV prevention research. One effect of the HIV epidemic has been to revolutionalise ethical norms for the conduct of research: it is now considered unethical to design and implement HIV related studies without community engagement. Unfortunately, there is very little commensurate effort in building the capacity (...) of local persons to engage actively with researchers, and there is no existing platform to facilitate dialogue between researchers and communities engaged in research in Nigeria. In an effort to address this gap, we undertook a series of three community dialogues and two community-researcher interface meetings in Nigeria. This paper aims to give an empirical account of the dialogue from these community engagement processes and provide a resulting critique of the implementation of research ethics practices in Nigeria. It is anticipated that the outputs will: support researchers in designing community-based research protocols; inform ethics committees of key considerations during research protocol reviews from a community perspective; and inform policy makers and research sponsors about issues of primary concern to communities with respect to HIV research. (shrink)

In den westlichen Industrienationen gilt das Prinzip der informierten Einwilligung als das Zentralelement medizinischer Forschungsethik. In anderen, stärker die Relationalität als die Individualität von Personen betonenden Kulturen hingegen werden medizinische Entscheidungen traditionell eher durch die Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Oberhaupt getroffen. Um verschiedenen kulturellen Normen gerecht zu werden, wird international tätigen Forschungsteams häufig empfohlen, den Community Consent und den Informed Consent einzuholen. Ausschlaggebend soll dabei letztlich der Informed Consent des Individuums sein. Es soll die Teilnahme auch dann verweigern können, wenn die (...) Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Repräsentant dem Vorhaben zugestimmt hat. Der Beitrag diskutiert, ob eine solche Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent tatsächlich geeignet ist, den Ansprüchen beider Prinzipien gerecht zu werden. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent ethisch problematisch ist, wenn der Gemeinschaft hierbei ein Vetorecht eingeräumt wird, das geeignet ist, die Realisation konträrer individueller Interessen und damit das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Betroffenen zu unterlaufen. Um zu gewährleisten, dass in interkulturellen Forschungszusammenhängen sowohl der individuellen als auch der relationalen Autonomie von Personen angemessener Raum gewährt wird, wäre es empfehlenswert, den Informed Consent ausdrücklich mit einer Community Consultation zu koppeln. Hier käme die Entscheidung gegen, aber auch für eine Studienteilnahme in letzter Instanz klar dem Individuum zu, während die Vorzüge einer Einbeziehung der Gemeinschaft in den Entscheidungsfindungsprozess anerkannt und genutzt werden könnten. (shrink)

The issue of benefits in international clinical research is highly controversial. Against the background of wide recognition of the need to share benefits of research, the nature of benefits remains strongly contested. Little is known about the perspectives of research populations on this issue and the extent to which research ethics discourses and guidelines are salient to the expectations and aspirations existing on the ground. This exploratory study contributes to filling this void by examining perspectives of people in low-income South (...) African communities on benefits in international clinical research. Twenty-four individuals with and without experience of being involved in clinical research participated in in-depth interviews. Respondents felt that ancillary care should be provided to clinical research participants, while a clinical study conducted in particular community should bring better health to its members through post-trial benefits. Respondents' perspectives were grounded in the perception that the ultimate goal of international clinical research is to improve local health. We argue that perspectives and understandings of the respondents are shaped by local moral traditions rather than clinical research specificities and require attention as valid moral claims. It is necessary to acknowledge such claims and cultural worlds from which they emerge, thus building the foundation for equal and embracing dialogue to bridge different perspectives and handle contradicting expectations. (shrink)

Universal health coverage is often implemented within countries through several national insurance schemes that collectively cover their populations. Yet the extent of services and benefits available can vary substantially between different schemes. This paper argues that these variations in coverage comprise tiering and then reviews different accounts of health and social justice that consider whether and when a tiered health system is fair. Using these accounts, it shows that the fairness of tiering can be determined by assessing whether differences in (...) coverage mean enrolees under some national insurance schemes do not achieve sufficient health or normal functioning and/or feel inferior relative to those belonging to other national insurance schemes. The paper further contends that these determinations of fairness should involve the people covered by different insurance schemes. Key universal health coverage questions to involve the public in answering are: Do the sum of differences between the schemes in your country generate feelings of unequal moral worth and/or mean enrolees struggle to achieve sufficient health or normal functioning? Which specific differences between health insurance schemes generate the greatest feelings of unequal moral worth in individuals? Which specific differences generate the greatest barriers to individuals achieving sufficient health or normal functioning? Rather than identifying which services to extend coverage to first, answering these questions will identify which disparities in services and benefits are the most morally urgent to address. Finally, some initial thoughts are offered on who from the public should be involved in making these decisions and how they might be involved as a matter of justice. (shrink)

In den westlichen Industrienationen gilt das Prinzip der informierten Einwilligung als das Zentralelement medizinischer Forschungsethik. In anderen, stärker die Relationalität als die Individualität von Personen betonenden Kulturen hingegen werden medizinische Entscheidungen traditionell eher durch die Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Oberhaupt getroffen. Um verschiedenen kulturellen Normen gerecht zu werden, wird international tätigen Forschungsteams häufig empfohlen, den Community Consent und den Informed Consent einzuholen. Ausschlaggebend soll dabei letztlich der Informed Consent des Individuums sein. Es soll die Teilnahme auch dann verweigern können, wenn die (...) Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Repräsentant dem Vorhaben zugestimmt hat. Der Beitrag diskutiert, ob eine solche Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent tatsächlich geeignet ist, den Ansprüchen beider Prinzipien gerecht zu werden. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent ethisch problematisch ist, wenn der Gemeinschaft hierbei ein Vetorecht eingeräumt wird, das geeignet ist, die Realisation konträrer individueller Interessen und damit das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Betroffenen zu unterlaufen. Um zu gewährleisten, dass in interkulturellen Forschungszusammenhängen sowohl der individuellen als auch der relationalen Autonomie von Personen angemessener Raum gewährt wird, wäre es empfehlenswert, den Informed Consent ausdrücklich mit einer Community Consultation zu koppeln. Hier käme die Entscheidung gegen, aber auch für eine Studienteilnahme in letzter Instanz klar dem Individuum zu, während die Vorzüge einer Einbeziehung der Gemeinschaft in den Entscheidungsfindungsprozess anerkannt und genutzt werden könnten. (shrink)

In den westlichen Industrienationen gilt das Prinzip der informierten Einwilligung als das Zentralelement medizinischer Forschungsethik. In anderen, stärker die Relationalität als die Individualität von Personen betonenden Kulturen hingegen werden medizinische Entscheidungen traditionell eher durch die Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Oberhaupt getroffen. Um verschiedenen kulturellen Normen gerecht zu werden, wird international tätigen Forschungsteams häufig empfohlen, den Community Consent und den Informed Consent einzuholen. Ausschlaggebend soll dabei letztlich der Informed Consent des Individuums sein. Es soll die Teilnahme auch dann verweigern können, wenn die (...) Gemeinschaft bzw. ihr Repräsentant dem Vorhaben zugestimmt hat. Der Beitrag diskutiert, ob eine solche Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent tatsächlich geeignet ist, den Ansprüchen beider Prinzipien gerecht zu werden. Es wird argumentiert, dass die Kopplung von Community Consent und Informed Consent ethisch problematisch ist, wenn der Gemeinschaft hierbei ein Vetorecht eingeräumt wird, das geeignet ist, die Realisation konträrer individueller Interessen und damit das Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Betroffenen zu unterlaufen. Um zu gewährleisten, dass in interkulturellen Forschungszusammenhängen sowohl der individuellen als auch der relationalen Autonomie von Personen angemessener Raum gewährt wird, wäre es empfehlenswert, den Informed Consent ausdrücklich mit einer Community Consultation zu koppeln. Hier käme die Entscheidung gegen, aber auch für eine Studienteilnahme in letzter Instanz klar dem Individuum zu, während die Vorzüge einer Einbeziehung der Gemeinschaft in den Entscheidungsfindungsprozess anerkannt und genutzt werden könnten. (shrink)

Background International collaborators face challenges in the design and implementation of ethical biomedical research. Evaluating community understanding of research and processes like informed consent may enable researchers to better protect research participants in a particular setting; however, there exist few studies examining community perspectives in health research, particularly in resource-limited settings, or strategies for engaging the community in research processes. Our goal was to inform ethical research practice in a biomedical research setting in western Kenya and similar resource-limited settings. Methods (...) We sought to use mabaraza , traditional East African community assemblies, in a qualitative study to understand community perspectives on biomedical research and informed consent within a collaborative, multinational research network in western Kenya. Analyses included manual, progressive coding of transcripts from mabaraza to identify emerging central concepts. Results Our findings from two mabaraza with 108 community members revealed that, while participants understood some principles of biomedical research, they emphasized perceived benefits from participation in research over potential risks. Many community members equated health research with HIV testing or care, which may be explained in part by the setting of this particular study. In addition to valuing informed consent as understanding and accepting a role in research activities, participants endorsed an increased role for the community in making decisions about research participation, especially in the case of children, through a process of community consent. Conclusions Our study suggests that international biomedical research must account for community understanding of research and informed consent, particularly when involving children. Moreover, traditional community forums, such as mabaraza in East Africa, can be used effectively to gather these data and may serve as a forum to further engage communities in community consent and other aspects of research. (shrink)

BackgroundObtaining informed consent for participation in genomic research in low-income settings presents specific ethical issues requiring attention. These include the challenges that arise when providing information about unfamiliar and technical research methods, the implications of complicated infrastructure and data sharing requirements, and the potential consequences of future research with samples and data. This study investigated researchers’ and participants’ parents’ experiences of a consent process and understandings of a genome-wide association study of malaria involving children aged five and under in Mali. (...) It aimed to inform best practices in recruiting participants into genomic research.MethodsA qualitative rapid ethical assessment was undertaken. Fifty-five semi-structured interviews were conducted with the parents of research participants. An additional nine semi-structured interviews were conducted with senior research scientists, research assistants and with a member of an ethics committee. A focus group with five parents of research participants and direct observations of four consent processes were also conducted. French and translated English transcripts were descriptively and thematically coded using OpenCode software.ResultsParticipants’ parents in the MalariaGEN study had differing understandings of the causes of malaria, the rationale for collecting blood samples, the purposes of the study and the kinds of information the study would generate. Genomic aspects of the research, including the gene/environment interaction underlying susceptibility or resistance to severe malaria, proved particularly challenging to explain and understand.ConclusionsThis study identifies a number of areas to be addressed in the design of consent processes for genomic research, some of which require careful ethical analysis. These include determining how much information should be provided about differing aspects of the research and how best to promote understandings of genomic research. We conclude that it is important to build capacity in the design and conduct of effective and appropriate consent processes for genomic research in low and middle-income settings. Additionally, consideration should be given to the role of review committees and community consultation activities in protecting the interests of participants in genomic research. (shrink)