A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.

IF 3 1区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS BMC Medical Ethics Pub Date : 2024-05-22 DOI:10.1186/s12910-024-01054-8
Kingsley Orievulu, Alex Hinga, Busisiwe Nkosi, Nothando Ngwenya, Janet Seeley, Anthony Akanlu, Paulina Tindana, Sassy Molyneux, Samson Kinyanjui, Dorcas Kamuya
{"title":"A scoping review of ethics review processes during public health emergencies in Africa.","authors":"Kingsley Orievulu, Alex Hinga, Busisiwe Nkosi, Nothando Ngwenya, Janet Seeley, Anthony Akanlu, Paulina Tindana, Sassy Molyneux, Samson Kinyanjui, Dorcas Kamuya","doi":"10.1186/s12910-024-01054-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.</p>","PeriodicalId":55348,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11110293/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01054-8","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments, multilateral public health organisations and research institutions to undertake research quickly to inform their responses to the pandemic. Most COVID-19-related studies required swift approval, creating ethical and practical challenges for regulatory authorities and researchers. In this paper, we examine the landscape of ethics review processes in Africa during public health emergencies (PHEs).

Methods: We searched four electronic databases (Web of Science, PUBMED, MEDLINE Complete, and CINAHL) to identify articles describing ethics review processes during public health emergencies and/or pandemics. We selected and reviewed those articles that were focused on Africa. We charted the data from the retrieved articles including the authors and year of publication, title, country and disease(s) reference, broad areas of (ethical) consideration, paper type, and approach.

Results: Of an initial 4536 records retrieved, we screened the titles and abstracts of 1491 articles, and identified 72 articles for full review. Nine articles were selected for inclusion. Of these nine articles, five referenced West African countries including Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone, and experiences linked to the Ebola virus disease. Two articles focused on South Africa and Kenya, while the other two articles discussed more general experiences and pitfalls of ethics review during PHEs in Africa more broadly. We found no articles published on ethics review processes in Africa before the 2014 Ebola outbreak, and only a few before the COVID-19 outbreak. Although guidelines on protocol review and approval processes for PHEs were more frequently discussed after the 2014 Ebola outbreak, these did not focus on Africa specifically.

Conclusions: There is a gap in the literature about ethics review processes and preparedness within Africa during PHEs. This paper underscores the importance of these processes to inform practices that facilitate timely, context-relevant research that adequately recognises and reinforces human dignity within the quest to advance scientific knowledge about diseases. This is important to improve fast responses to PHEs, reduce mortality and morbidity, and enhance the quality of care before, during, and after pandemics.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非洲公共卫生突发事件期间伦理审查程序的范围界定审查。
背景:COVID-19 大流行迫使各国政府、多边公共卫生组织和研究机构迅速开展研究,为应对大流行提供依据。大多数与 COVID-19 相关的研究都需要迅速获得批准,这给监管机构和研究人员带来了伦理和实践方面的挑战。在本文中,我们研究了非洲公共卫生突发事件(PHE)期间的伦理审查程序:我们搜索了四个电子数据库(Web of Science、PUBMED、MEDLINE Complete 和 CINAHL),以确定描述公共卫生突发事件和/或流行病期间伦理审查程序的文章。我们选择并审查了那些关注非洲的文章。我们将检索到的文章数据制成图表,包括作者和发表年份、标题、涉及的国家和疾病、(伦理)考虑的广泛领域、论文类型和方法:在最初检索到的 4536 条记录中,我们筛选了 1491 篇文章的标题和摘要,确定了 72 篇文章进行全面审查。其中九篇文章被选中纳入研究。在这 9 篇文章中,有 5 篇提到了西非国家,包括利比里亚、几内亚和塞拉利昂,以及与埃博拉病毒疾病相关的经历。两篇文章关注南非和肯尼亚,另外两篇文章则更广泛地讨论了非洲公共卫生教育期间伦理审查的一般经验和隐患。我们发现,在 2014 年埃博拉疫情爆发之前,没有发表过关于非洲伦理审查流程的文章,在 COVID-19 疫情爆发之前也只有几篇文章。尽管在 2014 年埃博拉疫情爆发后,有关公共卫生教育的方案审查和批准流程指南的讨论更为频繁,但这些指南并未特别关注非洲:结论:关于非洲在公共卫生教育期间的伦理审查流程和准备工作的文献还存在空白。本文强调了这些程序的重要性,它们为促进及时开展与具体情况相关的研究的实践提供了信息,这些研究在寻求推进有关疾病的科学知识的过程中充分认识到并加强了人的尊严。这对于改善对公共卫生教育的快速反应、降低死亡率和发病率以及提高大流行病发生前、发生期间和发生后的护理质量非常重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Medical Ethics
BMC Medical Ethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
7.40%
发文量
108
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Ethics is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in relation to the ethical aspects of biomedical research and clinical practice, including professional choices and conduct, medical technologies, healthcare systems and health policies.
期刊最新文献
From ontological to relational: A scoping review of conceptions of dignity invoked in deliberations on medically assisted death Putting patients first: when home-based care staff prioritise loyalty to patients above the system and themselves. An ethnographic study Encompassing trust in medical AI from the perspective of medical students: a quantitative comparative study. Impact of the life-sustaining treatment decision act on organ donation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrests in South Korea: a multi-centre retrospective study. Opportunities and challenges of a dynamic consent-based application: personalized options for personal health data sharing and utilization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1