Ethical and practical considerations in HIV drug trial closure: perspectives of research staff in Uganda

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS Research Ethics Pub Date : 2020-11-16 DOI:10.1177/17470161211030971
Sylivia Nalubega, Karen Cox, H. Mugerwa, C. Evans
{"title":"Ethical and practical considerations in HIV drug trial closure: perspectives of research staff in Uganda","authors":"Sylivia Nalubega, Karen Cox, H. Mugerwa, C. Evans","doi":"10.1177/17470161211030971","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is a gap in evidence regarding how research trial closure processes are managed to ensure continuity of HIV care for HIV positive participants following trial closure within low income settings. This research aimed to establish how research staff in Uganda understood and practised post-trial care for HIV positive trial participants. A grounded theory study was conducted using in-depth individual interviews and focus group discussions with 22 research staff from three different trials in Uganda. The results indicated that researchers engaged in three main activities to support trial participants, including: (i) preparing for post-trial care, which included instituting trial closure guidelines, planning necessary resources, and informing trial participants about post-trial care; (ii) facilitating participants during trial exit by engaging in psychological and practical support activities and (iii) providing follow up care and support for participants after trial exit, to respond to the needs of trial participants which often arose after trial exit. This study established a need for a holistic approach to post-trial-care of HIV positive trial participants in Uganda, and the need to engage multiple stakeholders including ethics authorities.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":"74 7 1","pages":"423 - 434"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161211030971","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is a gap in evidence regarding how research trial closure processes are managed to ensure continuity of HIV care for HIV positive participants following trial closure within low income settings. This research aimed to establish how research staff in Uganda understood and practised post-trial care for HIV positive trial participants. A grounded theory study was conducted using in-depth individual interviews and focus group discussions with 22 research staff from three different trials in Uganda. The results indicated that researchers engaged in three main activities to support trial participants, including: (i) preparing for post-trial care, which included instituting trial closure guidelines, planning necessary resources, and informing trial participants about post-trial care; (ii) facilitating participants during trial exit by engaging in psychological and practical support activities and (iii) providing follow up care and support for participants after trial exit, to respond to the needs of trial participants which often arose after trial exit. This study established a need for a holistic approach to post-trial-care of HIV positive trial participants in Uganda, and the need to engage multiple stakeholders including ethics authorities.
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
艾滋病毒药物试验结束的伦理和实际考虑:乌干达研究人员的观点
关于如何管理研究试验结束过程以确保在低收入环境中试验结束后艾滋病毒阳性参与者的艾滋病毒护理的连续性,证据存在差距。这项研究旨在确定乌干达的研究人员如何理解和实践艾滋病毒阳性试验参与者的试验后护理。通过与来自乌干达三个不同试验的22名研究人员进行深入的个人访谈和焦点小组讨论,开展了一项有根据的理论研究。结果表明,研究人员主要从事三项活动来支持试验参与者,包括:(1)为试验后护理做准备,包括制定试验结束指南,规划必要的资源,并向试验参与者告知试验后护理;(ii)通过参与心理和实际支持活动,为试验退出期间的参与者提供便利;(iii)为试验退出后的参与者提供后续关怀和支持,以回应试验退出后经常出现的试验参与者的需求。这项研究确定了对乌干达艾滋病毒阳性试验参与者的试验后护理采取整体方法的必要性,以及让包括伦理当局在内的多个利益攸关方参与的必要性。
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
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deficient epistemic virtues and prevalence of epistemic vices as precursors to transgressions in research misconduct COVID-19 human challenge trials and randomized controlled trials: lessons for the next pandemic Needs and preferences of REB members in the development of a new TCPS 2 training program in Canada Challenges facing Arab researchers in conducting and publishing scientific research: a qualitative interview study Passive data collection on Reddit: a practical approach
×
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