Currently, health systems research is reviewed by the same ethical standards as clinical research, which has recently been argued in the literature to be an inappropriate standard of evaluation. The issues unique to HSR warrant a different review by research ethics committees, as it does not impose the same risks to study participants as other types of clinical or public health research. However, there are limited tools and supporting documents that clarify the ethical considerations. Therefore, there is a need for (...) additional reflection around ethical review of HSR and their consideration by RECs. The purpose of this paper is to review, understand, and synthesize the current state of literature and practice to inform these deliberations and the larger discourse on ethics review guidelines for HSR. This paper presents a review of the literature on ethics of HSR in the biomedical, public health, and implementation research to identify ethical considerations specific to HSR; and to identify examples of commonly available guidance and/or tools for the ethical review of HSR studies. Fifteen articles were identified on HSR ethics issues, and forty-two international academic institutions were contacted, no institution had special ethical guidelines for reviewing HSR) about their HSR ethics review guidelines. There appears to be a clear gap in the current health research ethics discourse around health systems research ethics. This review serves as a first step towards a larger dialogue on the topic. (shrink)

With developed country governments and high resource institutions engaging in research in low- and middle-income countries, we argue that these entities have a moral obligation to help build and strengthen research infrastructure and capacity so local scientists and institutions can adequately conduct studies to understand and resolve the health burdens in low and middle income countries. We explore the moral justifications and motivations behind engaging in research capacity strengthening in the health sector in LMIC at multiple levels. In highlighting these (...) issues, this paper aims to initiate a global discourse around why capacity development in LMIC has a moral basis at the individual, institutional and system levels. (shrink)

Recent scholarship has considered what, if anything, rich people owe to poor people to achieve justice in global health and the implications of this for international research. Yet this work has primarily focused on international clinical research. Health systems research is increasingly being performed in low and middle income countries and is essential to reducing global health disparities. This paper provides an initial description of the ethical issues related to priority setting, capacity-building, and the provision of post-study benefits that arise (...) during the conduct of such research. It presents a selection of issues discussed in the health systems research literature and argues that they constitute ethical concerns based on their being inconsistent with a particular theory of global justice (the health capability paradigm). Issues identified include the fact that priority setting for health systems research at the global level is often not driven by national priorities and that capacity-building efforts frequently utilize one-size-fits-all approaches. (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)

BackgroundPromoting the social value of global health research undertaken in resource poor settings has become a key concern in global research ethics. The consideration for benefit sharing, which concerns the elucidation of what if anything, is owed to participants, their communities and host nations that take part in such research, and the obligations of researchers involved, is one of the main strategies used for promoting social value of research. In the last decade however, there has been intense debate within academic (...) bioethics literature seeking to define the benefits, the beneficiaries, and the scope of obligations for providing these benefits. Although this debate may be indicative of willingness at the international level to engage with the responsibilities of researchers involved in global health research, it remains unclear which forms of benefits or beneficiaries should be considered. International and local research ethics guidelines are reviewed here to delineate the guidance they provide.MethodsWe reviewed documents selected from the international compilation of research ethics guidelines by the Office for Human Research Protections under the US Department of Health and Human Services.ResultsAccess to interventions being researched, the provision of unavailable health care, capacity building for individuals and institutions, support to health care systems and access to medical and public health interventions proven effective, are the commonly recommended forms of benefits. The beneficiaries are volunteers, disease or illness affected communities and the population in general. Interestingly however, there is a divide between "global opinion" and the views of particular countries within resource poor settings as made explicit by differences in emphasis regarding the potential benefits and the beneficiaries.ConclusionAlthough in theory benefit sharing is widely accepted as one of the means for promoting the social value of international collaborative health research, there is less agreement amongst major guidelines on the specific responsibilities of researchers over what is ethical in promoting the social value of research. Lack of consensus might have practical implications for efforts aimed at enhancing the social value of global health research undertaken in resource poor settings. Further developments in global research ethics require more reflection, paying attention to the practical realities of implementing the ethical principles in real world context. (shrink)

The ethics of health incentive research—a form of public health research—are not well developed, and concerns of justice have been least examined. In this paper, we explore what potential long term harms in relation to justice may occur as a result of such research and whether they should be considered as part of its ethical evaluation. ‘Long term harms’ are defined as harms that contribute to existing systematic patterns of disadvantage for groups. Their effects are experienced on a long term (...) basis, persisting even once an incentive research project ends. We will first establish that three categories of such harms potentially arise as a result of health incentive interventions. We then argue that the risk of these harms also constitutes a morally relevant consideration for health incentive research and suggest who may be responsible for assessing and mitigating these risks. We propose that responsibility should be assigned on the basis of who initiates health incentive research projects. Finally, we briefly describe possible strategies to prevent or mitigate the risk of long term harms to members of disadvantaged groups, which can be employed during the design, conduct and dissemination of research projects. (shrink)

There is a growing interest in the ethics of Health Policy and Systems Research, and especially in areas that have particular ethical salience across HPSR. Hyder et al provide an initial framework to consider this, and call for more conceptual and empirical work. In this paper, we respond by examining the ethical issues that arose for researchers over the course of conducting three HPSR studies in Kenya in which health managers and providers were key participants. All three studies involved qualitative (...) work including observations and individual and group interviews. Many of the ethical dilemmas researchers faced only emerged over the course of the fieldwork, or on completion, and were related to interactions and relationships between individuals operating at different levels or positions in health/research systems. The dilemmas reveal significant ethical challenges for these forms of HPSR, and show that potential ‘solutions’ to dilemmas often lead to new issues and complications. Our experiences support the value of research ethics frameworks, and suggest that these can be enriched by incorporating careful consideration of context embedded social relations into research planning and conduct. Many of these essential relational elements of ethical practice, and of producing quality data, are given stronger emphasis in social science research ethics than in epidemiological, clinical or biomedical research ethics, and are particularly relevant where health systems are understood as social and political constructs. We conclude with practical and research implications. (shrink)

This paper discusses health policy and systems research in complex and rapidly changing contexts. It focuses on ethical issues at stake for researchers working with government policy makers to provide evidence to inform major health systems change at scale, particularly when the dynamic nature of the context and ongoing challenges to the health system can result in unpredictable outcomes. We focus on situations where ‘country ownership’ of HSR is relatively well established and where there is significant involvement of local researchers (...) and close ties and relationships with policy makers are often present. We frame our discussion around two country case studies with which we are familiar, namely China and South Africa and discuss the implications for conducting ‘embedded’ research. We suggest that reflexivity is an important concept for health system researchers who need to think carefully about positionality and their normative stance and to use such reflection to ensure that they can negotiate to retain autonomy, whilst also contributing evidence for health system change. A research process informed by the notion of reflexive practice and iterative learning will require a longitudinal review at key points in the research timeline. Such review should include the convening of a deliberative process and should involve a range of stakeholders, including those most likely to be affected by the intended and unintended consequences of change. (shrink)

The ethical concept of responsiveness has largely been interpreted in the context of international clinical research. In light of the increasing conduct of externally funded health systems research in low- and middle-income countries, this article examines how responsiveness might be understood for such research and how it can be applied. It contends that four features set HSR in LMICs apart from international clinical research: a focus on systems; being context-driven; being policy-driven; and being closely linked to development objectives. These features (...) support reinterpreting responsiveness for HSR in LMICs as responsiveness to systems needs, where health system performance assessments can be relied upon to identify systems needs, and/or responsiveness to systems priorities, which entails aligning research with HSR priorities set through country-owned processes involving national and sub-national policymakers from host countries. Both concepts may be difficult to achieve in practice. Country ownership is not an established fact for many countries and alignment to their priorities may be meaningless without it. It is argued that more work is, therefore, needed to identify strategies for how the responsiveness requirement can be ethically fulfilled for HSR in LMICs under non-ideal conditions such as where host countries have not set HSR priorities via country-owned processes. Embeddedness is proposed as one approach that could be the focus of further development. (shrink)

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high-income countries owed to parties from low and middle-income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: (...) the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post-trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity. (shrink)

The growing importance of health systems research has opened debate about appropriate ethical frameworks and guidelines for the ethical review and conduct of health systems research. In this article we consider a detailed proposal from Hyder et al. and consider it in relation to the conventional criteria for ethics review of clinical research outlined by Emanuel et al. and argue that the Emanuel criteria can be usefully applied to the review of health systems research to supplement the Hyder et al. (...) proposals. We argue further that health systems researchers and reviewers would benefit from many of the debates that have characterized the ethics of clinical research over the past three decades. (shrink)

Community engagement (CE) is gaining prominence in global health research. A number of ethical goals–spanning the instrumental, intrinsic, and transformative–have been ascribed to CE in global health research. This paper draws attention to an additional transformative value that CE is not typically linked to but that seems very relevant: solidarity. Both are concerned with building relationships and connecting parties that are distant from one another. This paper first argues that furthering solidarity should be recognized as another ethical goal for CE (...) in global health research. It contends that, over time, CE can build the bases of solidaristic relationships—moral imagination, recognition, understanding, empathy—between researchers and community members. Applying concepts from existing accounts of solidarity, the paper develops preliminary ideas about who should be engaged and how to advance solidarity. The proposed approach is compared to current CE practice in global health research. Finally, the paper briefly considers how solidaristic CE could affect how global health research is performed. (shrink)

How international research might contribute to justice in global health has not been substantively addressed by bioethics. Theories of justice from political philosophy establish obligations for parties from high‐income countries owed to parties from low and middle‐income countries. We have developed a new framework that is based on Jennifer Ruger's health capability paradigm to strengthen the link between international clinical research and justice in global health. The ‘research for health justice’ framework provides direction on three aspects of international clinical research: (...) the research target, research capacity strengthening, and post‐trial benefits. It identifies the obligations of justice owed by national governments, research funders, research sponsors, and investigators to trial participants and host communities. These obligations vary from those currently articulated in international research ethics guidelines. Ethical requirements of a different kind are needed if international clinical research is to advance global health equity. (shrink)

Federal regulations in the United States have shaped Institutional Review Boards to focus on protecting individual human subjects. Health services research studies focusing on healthcare institutions such as hospitals or clinics do not have individual human subjects. Since U.S. federal regulations are silent on what type of review, if any, these studies require, different IRBs may approach similar studies differently, resulting in undesirable variation in the review of studies focusing on healthcare institutions. Further, although these studies do not focus on (...) individual human subjects, they may pose risks to participating institutions, as well as individuals who work at those institutions, if identifying information becomes public. (shrink)