BACKGROUND: Research cites shortcomings and challenges facing research ethics committees in many regions across the world including Arab countries. This paper presents findings from qualitative in-depth interviews with research ethics committee (REC) chairs to explore their views on the challenges they face in their work with the oversight of research involving human populations.
METHODS: Virtual in-depth interviews were conducted with chairs (n = 11) from both biomedical and/or social-behavioral research ethics committees in six countries, transcribed, coded and subject to thematic analysis for recurring themes.
RESULTS: Two sets of recurring themes impede the work of the committees and pose concerns for the quality of the research applications: (1) procedures and committee level challenges such as heavy workload, variations in member qualification, impeding bureaucratic procedures, member overwork, and intersecting socio-cultural values in the review process; (2) inconsistencies in the researchers\' competence in both applied research ethics and research methodology as revealed by their applications.
CONCLUSIONS: Narratives of REC chairs are important to shed light on experiences and issues that are not captured in surveys, adding to the body of knowledge with implications for the region, and low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) in other parts of the world. International research collaborations could benefit from the findings.

Online participant recruitment (\"crowdsourcing\") platforms are increasingly being used for research studies. While such platforms can rapidly provide access to large samples, there are concomitant concerns around data quality. Researchers have studied and demonstrated means to reduce the prevalence of low-quality data from crowdsourcing platforms, but approaches to doing so often involve rejecting work and/or denying payment to participants, which can pose ethical dilemmas. We write this essay as an associate professor and two institutional review board (IRB) directors to provide a perspective on the competing interests of participants/workers and researchers and to propose a checklist of steps that we believe may support workers\' agency on the platform and lessen instances of unfair consequences to them while enabling researchers to definitively reject lower-quality work that might otherwise reduce the likelihood of their studies producing true results. We encourage further, explicit discussion of these issues among academics and among IRBs.

BACKGROUND: Educators are challenged to find better ways to prepare doctoral nursing students to conduct scholarly work involving human subjects.
OBJECTIVE: To better understand doctoral nursing students\' attitudes toward programmatic scholarly work and Institutional Review Board (IRB)/Quality Improvement Committee (QIC) education and submission processes.
METHODS: Recent Doctor of Nursing Practice (DNP) and Philosophy of Nursing (PhD) graduates were recruited using convenience sampling techniques to participate in this cross-sectional, descriptive, mixed-methods pilot study. Data were collected using two researcher-developed instruments.
CONCLUSIONS: Nineteen doctoral nursing students participated in this study. Students most often used a quantitative approach with health care providers to complete their scholarly work requirements. Both PhD and DNP participants were overall satisfied with the IRB/QIC content in the curricula and the submission process. Four themes were identified: (a) Efficiency, (b) Collaboration, (c) Faculty Mentorship, and (d) Areas for Improvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this pilot study may be used to enhance IRB/QIC processes through revision of administrative processes and student education.

暂无摘要。

Community-engaged research often poses challenges due to exactly those qualities that make it desirable: it provides a new model of research that differs in many ways from top-down, university-led, prospectively designed approaches. While many have discussed the challenges to conducting community-engaged research, few have provided precise and generalizable lessons for how to surmount these challenges. Here we discuss the challenges experienced in a project that was community-engaged at three levels: 1) a research team consisting of an academic and a community partner as well as a community and academic research assistant, 2) the research team engaged with a Community Advisory Board called the CBOP-CERB (Community Based Organization Partners-Community Ethics Research Board) throughout the project, and 3) the research involved recruiting community participants from an area with a historical distrust of researchers and research: Flint Michigan. We also discuss administrative challenges that this multilevel community-engagement posed. Most important, we provide practical lessons in order for future community-engaged research to avoid or mitigate many of these challenges.

In recognition of the importance of evaluation for funding, research, and quality improvement, a longstanding Community Advisory Board in Flint Michigan embarked on a process to evaluate their impact. The Community-Based Organization Partners (CBOP)-Community Ethics Review Board (CERB) engaged a research team composed of an academic researcher (Solomon Cargill) and a community partner (Spencer) to obtain funding, design and implement an evaluation of the CBOP-CERB. This evaluation study yielded two evaluations of the CBOP-CERB, one with researchers who had engaged with the CBOP-CERB and the other with Flint area community residents. The results of these two evaluations can serve to show other Community Advisory Boards how to establish and expand their impact, establish their worth for future funding, and how to articulate, evaluate, and achieve their goals.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Studying global health problems requires international multidisciplinary teams. Such multidisciplinarity and multiculturalism create challenges in adhering to a set of ethical principles across different country contexts. Our group on health system responses to violence against women (VAW) included two universities in a European high-income country (HIC) and four universities in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). This study aimed to investigate professional and policy perspectives on the types, causes of, and solutions to ethical challenges specific to the ethics approval stage of the global research projects on health system responses to VAW.
METHODS: We used the Network of Ethical Relationships model, framework method, and READ approach to analyse qualitative semi-structured interviews (n = 18) and policy documents (n = 27). In March-July 2021, we recruited a purposive sample of researchers and members of Research Ethics Committees (RECs) from the five partner countries. Interviewees signposted policies and guidelines on research ethics, including VAW.
RESULTS: We developed three themes with eight subthemes summarising ethical challenges across three contextual factors. The global nature of the group contributed towards power and resource imbalance between HIC and LMICs and differing RECs\' rules. Location of the primary studies within health services highlighted differing rules between university RECs and health authorities. There were diverse conceptualisations of VAW and vulnerability of research participants between countries and limited methodological and topic expertise in some LMIC RECs. These factors threatened the timely delivery of studies and had a negative impact on researchers and their relationships with RECs and HIC funders. Most researchers felt frustrated and demotivated by the bureaucratised, uncoordinated, and lengthy approval process. Participants suggested redistributing power and resources between HICs and LMICs, involving LMIC representatives in developing funding agendas, better coordination between RECs and health authorities and capacity strengthening on ethics in VAW research.
CONCLUSIONS: The process of ethics approval for global research on health system responses to VAW should be more coordinated across partners, with equal power distribution between HICs and LMICs, researchers and RECs. While some of these objectives can be achieved through education for RECs and researchers, the power imbalance and differing rules should be addressed at the institutional, national, and international levels. Three of the authors were also research participants, which had potential to introduce bias into the findings. However, rigorous reflexivity practices mitigated against this. This insider perspective was also a strength, as it allowed us to access and contribute to more nuanced understandings to enhance the credibility of the findings. It also helped to mitigate against unequal power dynamics.

UNASSIGNED: In retrospective secondary data analysis studies, researchers often seek waiver of consent from institutional Review Boards (IRB) and minimize risk by utilizing complex software. Yet, little is known about the perspectives of IRB experts on these approaches. To facilitate effective communication about risk mitigation strategies using software, we conducted two studies with IRB experts to co-create appropriate language when describing a software to IRBs.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted structured focus groups with IRB experts to solicit ideas on questions regarding benefits, risks, and informational needs. Based on these results, we developed a template IRB application and template responses for a generic study using privacy-enhancing software. We then conducted a three-round Delphi study to refine the template IRB application and the template responses based on expert panel feedback. To facilitate participants\' deliberation, we shared the revisions and a summary of participants\' feedback during each Delphi round.
UNASSIGNED: 11 experts in two focus groups generated 13 ideas on risks, benefits, and informational needs. 17 experts participated in the Delphi study with 13 completing all rounds. Most agreed that privacy-enhancing software will minimize risk, but regardless all secondary data studies have an inherent risk of unexpected disclosures. The majority (84.6%) noted that subjects in retrospective secondary data studies experience no greater risks than the risks experienced in ordinary life in the modern digital society. Hence, all retrospective data-only studies with no contact with subjects would be minimal risk studies.
UNASSIGNED: First, we found fundamental disagreements in how some IRB experts view risks in secondary data research. Such disagreements are consequential because they can affect determination outcomes and might suggest IRBs at different institutions might come to different conclusions regarding similar study protocols. Second, the highest ranked risks and benefits of privacy-enhancing software in our study were societal rather than individual. The highest ranked benefits were facilitating more research and promoting responsible data governance practices. The highest ranked risks were risk of invalid results from systematic user error or erroneous algorithms. These societal considerations are typically more characteristic of public health ethics as opposed to the bioethical approach of research ethics, possibly reflecting the difficulty applying a bioethical approach (eg, informed consent) in secondary data studies. Finally, the development of privacy-enhancing technology for secondary data research depends on effective communication and collaboration between the privacy experts and technology developers. Privacy is a complex issue that requires a holistic approach that is best addressed through privacy-by-design principles. Privacy expert participation is important yet often neglected in this design process. This study suggests best practice strategies for engaging the privacy community through co-developing companion documents for software through participatory design to facilitate transparency and communication. In this case study, the final template IRB application and responses we released with the open-source software can be easily adapted by researchers to better communicate with their IRB when using the software. This can help increase responsible data governance practices when many software developers are not research ethics experts.

Index case testing (ICT) is an evidence-based approach that efficiently identifies persons in need of HIV treatment and prevention services. In Malawi, delivery of ICT has faced challenges due to limited technical capacity of healthcare workers (HCWs) and clinical coordination. Digitisation of training and quality improvement processes presents an opportunity to address these challenges. We developed an implementation package that combines digital and face-to-face modalities (blended learning) to strengthen HCWs ICT skills and enhance quality improvement mechanisms. This cluster randomised controlled trial will assess the impact of the blended learning implementation package compared with the standard of care (SOC) on implementation, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes.
The study was conducted in 33 clusters in Machinga and Balaka districts, in Southern Malawi from November 2021 to November 2023. Clusters are randomised in a 2:1 ratio to the SOC versus blended learning implementation package. The SOC is composed of: brief face-to-face HCW ICT training and routine face-to-face facility mentorship for HCWs. The blended learning implementation package consists of blended teaching, role-modelling, practising, and providing feedback, and blended quality improvement processes. The primary implementation outcome is HCW fidelity to ICT over 1 year of follow-up. Primary service uptake outcomes include (a) index clients who participate in ICT, (b) contacts elicited, (c) HIV self-test kits provided for secondary distribution, (d) contacts tested and (e) contacts identified as HIV-positive. Service uptake analyses will use a negative binomial mixed-effects model to account for repeated measures within each cluster. Cost-effectiveness will be assessed through incremental cost-effectiveness ratios examining the incremental cost of each person tested.
The Malawi National Health Science Research Committee, the University of North Carolina and the Baylor College of Medicine Institutional Review Boards approved the trial. Study findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and conference presentations.
NCT05343390.