Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics最新文献

Background: Stakeholder engagement is increasingly recognized as a key component of ethical research in leading ethics guidelines. Ethics commentators have also argued that engagement has several beneficial outcomes for the field. Aim: This paper reports on the beneficial outcomes of stakeholder engagement in HIV prevention trials as perceived by stakeholders in the field. Method: We conducted 28 interviews between 2019 and 2021 with interviewees from various stakeholder groups in 12 countries and used thematic analysis to analyze the transcripts. Findings: We found three major themes - namely emPowerment where engagement is perceived to empower stakeholders, Partnerships where engagement is perceived to build equitable relationships and Protections where engagement is perceived to strengthen protections for participants and community stakeholders and to improve science. Conclusions: These findings map closely onto beneficial outcomes envisaged by ethics guidelines, however, the relationship between outcomes seen as beneficial deserves further exploration.

The widespread and persistent underrepresentation of groups experiencing health disparities in research involving biospecimens is a barrier to scientific knowledge and advances in health equity. To ensure that all groups have the opportunity to participate in research and feel welcome and safe doing so, we must understand how research studies may be shaped to promote inclusion. In this study, we explored the decision to participate in hypothetical research scenarios among African American adults (n = 169) that varied on the basis of four attributes (form of consent, reason for research, institutional affiliation and race of the researcher). Findings indicate that participants were largely willing to contribute to biobanks but significantly preferred opportunities where they had control over the use of their biological samples through tiered or study-specific forms of consent. Broad consent procedures, although common and perhaps preferred by participants with high trust in researchers, may amount to an exclusionary practice.

For research purposes, it is generally accepted that experimental ostracism manipulations can lead to a reduction of participants' well-being. To eventually restore participants' well-being, researchers rely on post-experimental debriefings that discredit prior deception. However, evidence suggests that discredited beliefs can persevere. The present research investigates whether a potent debriefing procedure restores participants' well-being after an experimentally induced ostracism experience. In two studies, participants were either excluded or included in a Cyberball game, indicated their well-being, and were debriefed. In two additional conditions, participants were debriefed before indicating their well-being. Ostracism compared to inclusion led to decreased positive and increased negative mood. The debriefing did not counteract this effect (Studies 1 & 2). Unwanted aftereffects of the manipulation persevered for more than one day after the experimental session (Study 2). These findings question the effectiveness of debriefings and raise issues about research ethics.

We aimed to review the attitudes and perspectives of the public and patients towards the sharing of data and biospecimens for research and to identify common dimensions, regardless of setting. Our review included systematic, scoping or thematic reviews of empirical studies retrieved from Medline (PubMed interface), Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest and Cochrane Reviews. The main themes identified and synthesised across the 14 reviews were readiness and motivations; potential risks and safeguards; trust, transparency and accountability; autonomy and preferred type of consent; and factors influencing data and biospecimen sharing and consent. Sociodemographic factors and research and individual context remain relevant influencing factors in all settings, while preferences for types of consent are highly heterogeneous. Trusted environments and adapted consent options with participant engagement are relevant to improve research participation.

Research engaging children and adolescents living with HIV (CALWH) is critical for youth-friendly services and HIV care, and researchers need to ensure that such engagement is ethical. We conducted a systematic review to identify key ethical considerations for the engagement of CALWH in research. The review focused on primary research articles conducted in African countries that examined ethical issues in CALWH engaged in research. Ten studies met the inclusion criteria; the following seven key domains were extracted: 1) justifications for engaging CALWH in research; 2) community involvement; 3) informed consent/assent; 4) caregiver involvement; 5) perceptions of benefits; 6) perception of the risks of involvement; and 7) confidentiality. These domains can inform the ethical engagement of CALWH in research.

Problem: As community-engaged research (CER) methods evolve, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) must adapt policies to facilitate CER research. This paper describes a novel collaboration between hospital-based therapy dog volunteer teams (CERs), academic faculty, and an IRB. Subjects: CER volunteers delivered a canine-assisted intervention to hospitalized adults in a clinical trial. Methods: IRB members and faculty developed a human subjects protections training tailored to the volunteer handlers' role as study interventionists including an interactive video- and discussion-based training with a knowledge assessment. Findings: Fourteen volunteer handlers were trained. The expedited IRB review period was similar to national average rates (18 days.) Volunteer handlers have conducted 107 research visits with little patient attrition. Conclusion: Tailored human subjects trainings facilitate research with interventions delivered by people who are not typically involved in research. Bespoke CER human subjects training requires collaboration between researchers and IRBs and flexibility in IRB policy regarding CER.

The informed consent form (ICF) is intended to assure that subject participation in research studies is informed and voluntary. Yet, there is ample evidence that many subjects do not adequately understand the concepts and language in a clinical trial ICF, which may undermine their willingness to participate in a clinical trial. In a randomized setting, we compared a standard read-only ICF to an audio-assisted ICF with or without teach-back. We found that audio-assisted ICFs significantly improved willingness to participate in a mock clinical trial among our sample of primarily African-American participants.

Objective: The aim of this systematic review is to estimate: (i) the overall effect of blinding models on bias; (ii) the effect of each blinding model; and (iii) the effect of un-blinding on reviewer's accountability in biomedical research proposals. Methods: Systematic review of prospective or retrospective comparative studies that evaluated two or more peer review blinding models for biomedical research proposals/funding applications and reported outcomes related to peer review efficiency. Results: Three studies that met the inclusion criteria were included in this review and assessed using the QualSyst tool by two authors. Conclusion: Our systematic review is the first to assess peer review blinding models in the context of funding. While only three studies were included, this highlighted the dire need for further RCTs that generate validated evidence. We also discussed multiple aspects of peer review, such as peer review in manuscripts vs proposals and peer review in other fields.

To understand whether they found a two-step decision process helpful and why, adolescent-parent dyads participating in a study investigating return of genomic testing results were asked about their decision-making experience. Responses were qualitatively coded and analyzed using thematic analysis. Adolescents and parents found both joint and independent decision-making stages helpful. Regarding independent decision-making, adolescents appreciated exercising independence, while parents valued both adolescent and parental independence. Joint decision-making allowed each to hear the other's viewpoints. Some found joint decision-making irrelevant but recognized it might help others. Overall, adolescents and parents had similar reasons for finding the two-step decision-making process helpful. Our findings support using such a process for engaging parents and adolescents in challenging research and clinical decisions.