research ethics for jpcfm (jan2011)

126
INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ETHICS Ghaiath M.A. Hussein Assistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine King Fahad Medical City King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences Contacts: [email protected] ; 00966566511653

Upload: ghaiath-hussein

Post on 26-Jan-2015

102 views

Category:

Health & Medicine


0 download

DESCRIPTION

A lecture I gave for the PG residents of the Joint Program of Community and Family Medicine in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia (Jan. 2011)

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INTRODUCTION TO RESEARCH ETHICS

Ghaiath M.A. HusseinAssistant Professor, Faculty of Medicine King Fahad Medical City

King Saud Bin Abdulaziz University for Health SciencesContacts: [email protected]; 00966566511653

Page 2: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

• Introduction• What is research ethics?• Historical background: How did research

ethics develop? • Ethical principals of research: What makes

research ethical? Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 3: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

OUTLINE OF PRESENTATION

• What are the ethical issues that arise in research?o Benefit/harm analysiso Vulnerability (Risk-Vulnerability Matrix)o Informed Consento Fairness and equity in research participationo Privacy and confidentialityo Conflict of Interests (COI)o Research ethical reviewo Clinical trialso Special topics in research ethics

• Ethical issues after the conduct of research: ethics of results presentation & publication

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 4: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INTRODUCTION • What is research?• Where does research fit in the knowledge Management

Cycle (KMC)• Where are we in terms of research?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 5: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT IS RESEARCH?

• “research” is defined as an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry or systematic investigation.

• A determination that research is the intended purpose of the undertaking is key for differentiating activities that require ethics review by an ethics review and those that do not.

• Systematic Methodolic scientific approach for basic facts around a certain problem in order to find solutions based on these facts.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 6: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

.) عام ) لكل مواطن لكل بالدوالر العالم في البحوث على إنفاقا دول عشر واقل وأكثر والتنمية البحوث على اإلنفاق حيث من العالم دول حجم توضح خريطةwww.worldmapper.org :المصدر

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 7: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

لعام السكان من مليون لكل المنشورة العلمية المقاالت عدد يوضح وجدول المنشورة، العلمية المقاالت عدد حيث من العالم دول حجم توضح خريطةالمصدرم. 2001 : www.worldmapper.org

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 8: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 9: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT CYCLEResearch

Policy makers

Statistics

Clinicians

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 10: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

HOW DOES RESEARCH IMPROVE HEALTH?

3/15/2010Research Ethics. Ghaiath

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 11: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT MAKES A GOOD RESEARCH?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 12: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CRITERIA OF “GOOD” RESEARCH

• Systematic: The research developed, implemented and reported in a systematic manner.

• Methodolic: Adopt & use skillfully the research methods, materials ,approaches in order to ensure reliability of the results & findings.

• Scientific: The research should be scientifically sound through utilizing scientific approaches , tools & techniques.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 13: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT’S RESEARCH ETHICS?

• It is the field of ethics that systematically analyze the ethical and legal questions raised by research involving human subjects.

• Its main focus is to ensure that the study participants are protected and, ultimately,

• that clinical research is conducted in a way that serves the needs of such participants and of society as a whole.

• It works when and only when it is applied before the research is conducted

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 14: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

HISTORICALBACKGROUND

Born in Scandal… The Evolution of Research Ethics

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 15: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

EIGHTEENTH AND NINETEENTH CENTURY

• James Lind “scurvy study in sailors - Salisbury• Edward Jenner cowpox vaccine test• 1897 Guiseppe Sanarelli yellow fever test

• 1900 Walter Reed established several [first ever] “safeguards”

• Self-experimentation• Only adults would be enrolled in research• Written informed consent• Reimbursement (inducement)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 16: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

HISTORY OF RESEARCH ETHICS

• Pre-World War II• Research standards left up to the discretion

of the individual researcher• World War II• Experiments conducted on inmates of Nazi

concentration camps• 1945-1949 - Trials in Nuremberg, Germany–

physicians convicted of crimes against humanity

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 17: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

NAZI DOCTORS’ EXPERIMENTATION

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 18: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH GUIDELINES

Nuremberg Code (1947) • As a result of WWII Nazi experiments• First international code in research ethics • Voluntary consent absolutely essential

(restricting research with infants, children, developmentally challenged, etc.)

• Risk/Benefit Analysis essential to ethics review

• Scientific Soundness is important to ethics review

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 19: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE NUREMBERG CODE (1947)

• The first provision of the code requires that “the voluntary informed consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.” The code provides other details implied by such a requirement:

• capacity to consent• freedom from coercion• comprehension of the risks and benefits involved• Experiment to be conducted by highest qualified

personsThe code on the web: http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/nuremberg.php3

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 20: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE DECLARATION OF HELSINKI (DOH)

• The World Medical Association created the Declaration of Helsinki in 1964 & amended in: Tokyo (1975), Venice (1983), Hong Kong (1989), South Africa (1996), Edinburgh (2000), Washington (2002), and Tokyo (2004)

• “The well-being of the subject should take precedence over the interests of science and society”

• Consent should be in writing• Use caution if participant is in dependent

relationship with researcher• Limited use of placebo• Greater access to benefit

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 21: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION WMA(1964)

• Respect for Persons – people are not a means to an end; researchers have duty to protect life, health, privacy and dignity of research participants

• Standard of care must be best available, even for control group

• Proxy consent and assent for vulnerable populations

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 22: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 23: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WILLOWBROOK STUDY, NEW YORK1956-1972, NYU

• 800 Children - Willowbrook State School for the Mentally Retarded

• Researchers injected students with mild form of hepatitis

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 24: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE BELMONT REPORT (1979)

• In 1972, the public became aware of the Tuskegee study, which took place in the southern United States from 1932 to 1972.

• In 1974 the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research was established.

• In 1978, the commission submitted its report titled, The Belmont Report: Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research.

• Those principles—respect for persons, beneficence and justice—are accepted as the 3 fundamental principles for the ethical conduct of research involving human participants.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 25: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

COUNCIL FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS OF MEDICAL SCIENCE (CIOMS) GUIDELINES (1993)

• Informed consent• Research in developing countries• Protection of vulnerable populations• Distribution of the burdens and benefits• Role of ethics committees Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 26: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HARMONISATION (ICH)

• Formed by US, Japan and Europe• Its goal is to standardize the process by which

new drugs are developed, tested and brought to market.

• The ICH guidelines require review by an ethics committee and informed consent of participants. Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 27: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

IS IT OVER?... TORVAN TRIAL IN KANO, NIGERIA

• Kano Trovan clinical trials in 1996, on pediatric age group, during the worst ever meningococcal meningitis.

• Lack of proper Governmental authorization and informed consent during the studies publicized in 2000, by Washington Post.

• Court trial and release of investigation panel reports stalled in Nigeria.

• Suit for 5.8 billion USD moved to the USA and report leaked there too.

• Settlement out of court being discussed.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 28: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES OF RESEARCH

What makes research ethical?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 29: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT MAKES THE RESEARCH ETHICAL?

1- Social or Scientific Value:• Improve health and wellbeing• Increase the knowledge

2- Scientific Validity• Acceptable methods including analysis techniques to

produce valid data (Test the objectives)

3- Justice and Inclusiveness: • Stigmatized and vulnerable are not targeted• Rich not favored for the benefit of research• Clear inclusion and exclusion criteria according to the

objectives.• Clear Strategies for recruitment

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 30: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT MAKES THE RESEARCH ETHICAL? (CONT.)

4- Favorable Risk-Benefit Ratio: • Identification and Minimization the risk • Enhancement of the potential benefit• Risk to the subject are appropriate to the benefits

to the subject and society.

5- Independent Review: • Review of the Design, the proposed subject

selection and risk-benefit ratio.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 31: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT MAKES THE RESEARCH ETHICAL? (CONT.)

6- Free & Informed Consent: • Provision of Information• Voluntarily and Consists with the values

7- Respect for the potential and enrolled subjects & Respect for Vulnerable Persons :• Right to withdrawal• Privacy and confidentiality• Informing about the new discovered risks or

benefits• Maintaining the welfare of the subjects.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 32: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT ARE THE ETHICAL ISSUES THAT ARISE IN RESEARCH?Benefit/harm analysisVulnerability (Risk-Vulnerability Matrix)Informed ConsentFairness and equity in research participationPrivacy and confidentialityConflict of Interests (COI)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 33: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

BENEFITS

• Benefits to research subjects

• Benefits to societyoSpecific new, effective intervention oKnowledge which some time in the

future may lead to effective interventions

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 34: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS

• Direct Benefito arising from the intervention being studiedo information that can influence care, e.g.,

diagnostic• Collateral “indirect” Benefit

o Arising from being a subject, even if one does not receive the experimental intervention

o extra supervision from being in the research study (?)

o access to medical care not available for economic reasons

o unplanned or unanticipated benefits

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 35: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS

• Inspirational

• Aspirationalo benefit to society (arises from the results of the study)

• Payments or incentives – benefits???

Any level of research risk could be offset by such gains if they were significant enough

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 36: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

BENEFITS TO RESEARCH SUBJECTS

• No benefits from the researchoPhase I trials testing maximum tolerated

doseoNon-therapeutic research procedures

Mechanism of diseaseResearch Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 37: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

RISK/HARM

• Risk:Means any harm or injury that affect the subject or the participant under study.

• Risk:“ A state of uncertainty where some of the possibilities involve a loss, catastrophe, or other undesirable outcome. ”

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 38: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

TYPES OF RISKS

• Physical risks:1.Cold: Nazi Experiments with ice tanks• Pressure: Nazi experiments in high altitude• Heat: Heat stroke; Burn; Exhaustion• Noise: High noise may lead to impairment

or loss of hearing • Light: Dim light may affect the vision

.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 39: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

NAZI EXPERIMENTS

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 40: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

HIGH ALTITUDE EXPERIMENTS

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 41: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

TYPES OF RISK…CONT.

• Medical Risks:1.Therapeutics: (Tuskegee expirement)• Preventive: (Trials of polio vaccine)

3. Diagnostic:• Irradiation:

- Teratogenic effect to the fetus.- Carcinogenic effect.• Samplings:

- Biopsies: tissues that contain genetic information about the participant.- Surgical hazards.-Too risky procedures (under anesthesia)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 42: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Social Risks:Stigma (e.g. research on HIV-AIDS, STDs).

• Emotional Risks:On families when their children chosen for trial of new vaccine; research in war.

• Psychological Risks:Questionnaires with sensitive questions to participants in sensitive positions, as to ask poor people about there nutrition and houses.

THE FORGOTTEN RISKS!

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 43: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

RISK TO THE SOCIETY:

• Manipulating environmental factors (Pathogenic organisms and toxic chemicals).

• Economic risk• Legal risks:• Vulnerable groups, e.g.,

prisoners, children, pregnant women.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 44: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CATEGORIZATION OF RISK

risk is categorized by severity into:1. Minimal Risk: As routine blood sample , throat swabs,

vaginal swabs, sputum exams• Above Minimal Risk: That can be minimized, and within

the toleration of the participant. • Too Risky: the most dangerous type, and the

Researcher should not be allowed to conduct A research that endanger the life of the participants e.g. live cancer cells , live virus

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 45: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

MINIMAL RISK

• The probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during routine performance of physical or psychological examination or tests

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 46: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CLINICAL EQUIPOISE

• Clinical equipoise means a genuine uncertainty on the part of the expert medical community about the comparative therapeutic merits of each arm of a clinical trial.

• The tenet of clinical equipoise provides a clear moral foundation to the requirement that the health care of subjects not be disadvantaged by research participants.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 47: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CLINICAL EQUIPOISE

• The start of the trial, there must be a state of clinical equipoise regarding the merits of the regimens to be tested, and the trial must be designed in such a way as to make it reasonable to expect that, if it is successfully conducted, clinical equipoise will be disturbed."

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 48: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 49: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

MINIMIZATION OF RISK

• Adequate facilities ,procedures and personnel for dealing with emergencies .

• Arrangement made for monitoring and detecting adverse out comes .

• All trials should be reviewed by a Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB).

• All potential toxins, mutagens or teratogens used should be justified.

• The National Committee for Atomic Energy should completed risk assessment for the use of the radiation and radioactive substances .

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 50: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• For Drugs:- Registration, its trade name, chemical name and pharmacological class .- Recommended dose, form of administration in the study.- Known or possible interaction with other drugs, side effects and adverse reactions.- Placebo should be justified.

MINIMIZATION OF RISK

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 51: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Social Risks:- The research should have potential to enhance the future health of the society .

• For vulnerable groups :- Additional safeguards needed to protect there rights and welfare .

• For recruitment materials:(posters, newspapers, T.V, videos ……).Should be acceptable if submitted .

MINIMIZATION OF RISK

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 52: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• For Psychological Risks :• Sensitive questions for sensitive group like those

with AIDS ,STDs,T.B, can be questioned through 3rd person or ask the help of psychologists .

• Economic Risks :• Traveling cost can be solved out.• Absentees issues should also be solved out.

MINIMIZATION OF RISK

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 53: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Legal :- The risk should be reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits to the subjects or society .- Privacy of subject should be adequately protected .- For tissue samples containing genetics information the subject should have option to withdraw at any time .

MINIMIZATION OF RISK

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 54: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

VULNERABILITY (RISK-VULNERABILITY MATRIX)

Page 55: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Vulnerable: “Vulnerable persons are those who are relatively (or absolutely) incapable of

• protecting their own interests. More formally, they may have insufficient power, intelligence, education, resources strength, or other needed attributes to protect their own interests.” (CIOMS, 2002)

DEFINITION

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 56: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHO IS VULNERABLE?Making use of this definition… let’s brainstorm!

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

www.amanet-trust.org

Page 57: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

1. WOMEN• Women in the reproductory age group are usually

excluded in drug/vaccine studies where the possible effects on foetus are not known.

• As justice to women, their health conditions should be addressed through involving them in research.

• Types of research that benefit women directly include, obstetrics and gynaecology, sexually transmitted infections, vitamin studies etc.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 58: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

2. PREGNANT WOMEN• Should be awarded special protection because of

additional health concerns during pregnancy and the risk of damage to the foetus.

• pregnant women must be excluded from research unless the purpose is to meet the health needs of the mother, and

• the foetus will be placed at risk only to the minimum extent necessary to meet such needs or

• the risk to the foetus is minimal

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 59: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

3. CHILDREN• particularly vulnerable group. The major ethical

issue for involving children is that parents are the primary decisions makers for their minor children.

• there must be no undue inducement to participate for parent, guardian or child, although reimbursement of expenses is allowed.

• A “small gift” to the child after completion of the research is however acceptable.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 60: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• the purpose of the research is to obtain knowledge relevant to the health needs of children

• a parent or legal representative of each child should give permission;

• the agreement (assent) of each child has been obtained to the extent of the child`s capabilities; and

• a child`s refusal to participate or continue in the research should be respected.

REQUIREMENTS FOR INVOLVING CHILDREN IN RESEARCH

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 61: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Minimal Risk- risk in relation to normal experience of average, healthy normal children – daily life/routine physical psychological exams

• Minimal Risk varies with age but not social status, illness or circumstances

• Consultation with experts – paediatricians , social workers etc

ASSESSMENT OF RISK IN CHILDREN

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 62: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

4. MENTALLY ILL / MENTALLY HANDICAPPED PERSONS• Is s/he capable of self-determination?• Respect for the immature and the incapacitated may

require protecting them as they mature or while they are incapacitated (Belmont Report)

• it is usually that informed consent will be provided by a surrogate/ legal representative of that person.

• The golden rule for involving mentally ill or handicapped people is that ; The objections of these subjects to involvement should be honoured, unless the research entails pro-providing them a therapy unavailable elsewhere.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 63: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

5. THE ELDERLY• Old age alone does not render a person incapable

of consenting to health research. • In the absence of any indication to the contrary,

elderly patients are generally assumed to be competent to consent to research.

• However, consideration should be given to the possibility of mental deterioration, the ability to comprehend, and the dependence and vulnerability of the elderly

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 64: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

6. PRISONERS• Prisons are organisational structures exacerbate

vulnerability of the incarcerated individuals.• They have limited economic power, inadequate

protection of human rights, limited availability of health care and treatment options.

• The prison structure makes the incarcerated prisoners confined, stressed, crowded, psychologically devastated with symptoms such as psychosis, severe depression, and complete social withdrawal.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 65: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

7. CAPTIVE/DISPLACED/RETURNING POPULATIONS• Have constrained movements and choices• refugees, those in police custody, and displaced

population, • hospitalised patients, students, institutionalised

persons and military personnel. • readily available for research activities for

extended periods, enhancing their attractiveness to research enterprise.

• Researchers should always have to be sure if participant’s decision making capacity is not compromised.

WHO IS VULNERABLE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 66: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Nature and degree of risk,• The condition of the particular population

involved, and • The nature and level of the anticipated

benefits. • Relevant risks and benefits must be

thoroughly arrayed in documents and procedures used in the informed consent process

HOW TO DECIDE?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 67: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

ASSESSMENT OF RISK-VULNERABILITY

Research Risk depends on both Level ofInvasiveness (physical, psychological oremotional) and Vulnerability of participants.

Vulnerability is generally a pre-existingcondition, in that it exists regardless ofwhether the research is conducted or not. Itcan be inherent or situational.

Page 68: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

TRI-COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENTETHICS REVIEW (CONT.)

Invasiveness: consider the physical, psychological,emotional and legal harms that could be caused byor exacerbated by the research.

Group Invasiveness Vulnerability Low Medium HighLow Exp. Exp. FullMedium Exp. Full FullHigh Full Full Full

Page 69: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

EXAMPLES:

Low Vulnerability/Medium Invasiveness:Anonymized survey of health carepractitioners to determine whether their workenvironment poses challenges to theirpractice.

High Vulnerability/Medium Invasiveness:Determining whether obese children aged9 to 12 adhered to a diet recommended bytheir family physician.

Page 70: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

RISK/VULNERABILITY MATRIX

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 71: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Vulnerability is considered to offer better protection, not to stop research on the vulnerable

• Vulnerable groups should not be denied their right to participate in relevant research

• The risk assessment varies with the degree of vulnerability

CONCLUSION

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 72: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INFORMED CONSENT

Page 73: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

DEFINITION:

• "autonomous authorization of a medical intervention…by individual patients/participants" (Beauchamp and Faden, 2004)

• It's the practical expression of patient's autonomy, and the respect for him/her personality

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 74: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

COMPONENTS OF FIC:

1."Disclosure" refers to the provision of relevant information by the clinician and its comprehension by the patient.

2."Capacity" refers to the patient's ability to understand the relevant information and to appreciate those consequences of his or her decision that might reasonably be foreseen.

3."Voluntariness" refers to the patient's right to come to a decision freely, without force, coercion or manipulation.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 75: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

Disclosure

VOLUNTARINESS

Capacity

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 76: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

1. DISCLOSURE

• This refers to the process during which physicians provide information about the proposed research to the participant.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 77: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

EIGHT REQUIRED ELEMENTS[45 CFR 46.116(A) & 21 CFR 50.25]

1.Statement that study is research and information on purposes / duration / procedures / experimental procedures

2.Reasonably foreseeable risks or discomforts3.Reasonably expected benefits4.Alternative procedures5.How confidentiality will be maintained

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 78: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

EIGHT REQUIRED ELEMENTS[45 CFR 46.116(A) & 21 CFR 50.25]

1.Information on compensation for injuries (unless minimal risk)

2.Contact persons for information on research, injury, subject’s rights

3.Voluntary participation, no penalty or loss of benefits for refusal or withdrawal

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 79: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

SIX ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS

1. Statement that there may be risks which are unforeseeable

2. Under what circumstances investigator could terminate subject’s participation

3. Additional costs to subjects4. Consequences of subject’s withdrawal from

research5. Statement that will be told of new findings6. Approximate number of subjects in study

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 80: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

FORMS OF CONSENT

• Normally, should be provided by participants themselves.

• • Deferred consent is where the subject is entered into a research study and consent is gained from surrogates after a specified period of time for continuation of the subject’s inclusion in the trial.

• • Prospective informed consent represents an attempt to canvass support in advance from a population considered at risk of developing a serious illness.

• • Surrogate consent (SDM): ideally a substituted judgment made by a person responsible for health care decision-making for a particular patient under the relevant legislation

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 81: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WAIVER OF INFORMED CONSENT

• REC must find and document that the folwoing criteria have been satisfied: o Poses no more than Minimal risk researcho Waiver or alteration will not adversely affect the

rights and welfare of the subjectso Research could not practicably be carried out

without the waiver or alterationo Does not involve a therapeutic interventiono Subjects will be provided with additional

pertinent information

* All of the above must apply

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 82: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

DOCUMENTATION OF INFORMED CONSENT

• Written consent document• Language understandable to the subject or the

subject’s Legally Authorized Representative (LAR)• Signed by subject or subject’s LAR• Copy SHALL be given to subject• Opportunity to read before signing

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 83: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRINCIPLES FOR PROVIDING INFORMATION TO THE PARTICIPANT:

• make it clear; avoid jargon• use language appropriate to the patient's level of

understanding in a language of their fluency• pause and observe patients for their reactions• invite questions from the patient and check for

understanding• invite the patient to share fears, concerns, hopes and

expectations• watch for patients' emotional response: verbal and non-

verbal• show empathy and compassion• summarize the imparted information• provide contact information (and other resources)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 84: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

2. CAPACITY:

• refers to the presence of a group/set of functional abilities a person needs to possess in order to make a specific decisions (Griso and Applebaum, 1998).

These include:• To UNDERSTAND the relevant information• To APPRECIATE the relatively foreseeable

consequences of the various available options available.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 85: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

3. VOLUNTARINESS:

• refers to a participant’s right to make participation decisions free of any undue influence.

Influences include:• Physical restraint or sedation• Coercion involves the use of explicit or implicit

threat to ensure that the treatment is accepted• Manipulation involves the deliberate distortion

or omission of information in an attempt to induce the patient to accept a treatment

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 86: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

VOLUNTARINESS

• Free of undue influence• Persuation: appeals to reason• Manipulation• Coercision: explicit or implicit threats• Force: restraint or sedation

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 87: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

MANIPULATION

• Distortion of facts or omission• Non-coercive alternation of choices• Undue financial payment• Undue influence, government funding only at

grade 8 for hpv

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 88: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRACTICAL CHALLENGES TO A "FULLY INFORMED CONSENT"

• Diagnostic uncertainty• Complexity of medical information• Linguistic and cultural differences• Overworked health personnel• Paternalistic approach in doctor-patient

relationship in developing countries, including Sudan.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 89: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Written Parental/Guardian consent only required for those below the “legal age”

• Assumption : best interests of the child should be regarded

• Both parents of the child should sign or just one?• Institutionalised children?• Children without any recognisable legal guardian?

INFORMED CONSENT FROM CHILDREN

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 90: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• After the age of 7 and below legal consenting age (which is different for different countries depending on regulations) those who are competent to understand the opinion of the child should be respected

• “A child’s affirmative agreement to participate in research. Mere failure to object should not be construed as assent” Silence Assent

• Waiver of parental consent may be granted in adolescent research in certain circumstances i.e. drug abuse, sexual behaviour etc.

• Assent documents may include – age appropriate information sheets and forms where applicable

ASSENT

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 91: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRIVACY AND CONFIDENTIALITY

Page 92: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRIVACY & CONFIDENTIALITY

• Duty to protect personal information “to the extent permitted by law”o must report child abuse, intent to harm oneself or others

• Access, control and dissemination of personal information must be subject to safeguards:o Anonymity – data stripped of identifying characteristics

(incl. recorded data, quotes)o Lockso Computer Passwords

Page 93: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRIVACY

• The right to be left alone and to keep personal information inaccessible to others (the condition of limited access to a person)

Page 94: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRIVACY

• Relates primarily to Process of clinical examination and collecting datao Often Challenging in Natural Environmento Can inconvenience research participantso Can encounter participants in publico Procedures and processes can compromise

privacyo Some institutions & cultures not accustomed to

privacy, or do not value it

Page 95: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRIVACY

• Research requiring massive bodies of data involves the disclosure of medical and other confidential records to third parties, creates a threat to privacy

• Privacy should be aggressively protected

Page 96: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

INFRINGEMENTS OF PRIVACY

• Infringements is justified under certain circumstances; if:

1.Necessary for research conduct– Doesn’t create harm to participants– There is societal benefit

Page 97: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CONFIDENTIALITY

• The duty to respect the patient’s/research participant confidence that the researcher/doctor will not disclose the information s/he received as part of research of health care.

• How someone will deal with the information that was disclosed to him in confidence

• Failure to keep private information is an infringements of confidentialityo Deliberateo Accidental

Page 98: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

MEASURES TO RESPECT CONFIDENTIALITY

• Avoid identifiable data• Encode the collected data• Limit access to data• Keep in password-protected PC• Destroy the original copies after analysis, or

publication• Training of research team on confidentiality• Release information without identification

To each of the previous conditions, there are ethically-acceptable exceptions

Page 99: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY

• Court order • Communicable diseases• Vulnerable person abuse/neglect• Driving/flying/machine safety• Dangerous patients

Page 100: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

UNANTICIPATED PROBLEMS: EXAMPLES

• STDs research – placement of clinic. Sign on door.• Waiting with others, who knows you?.

Page 101: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

IMPORTANT CONSIDERATIONS:

• Retention of data after the study is complete• Secondary uses and linkage of data (i.e.

databases)• How much personal information is actually

necessary for the study?

Page 102: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST (COI)

Page 103: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT IS AN INTEREST?

• An interest may be defined as a commitment, goal, or value held by an individual or an institution.

• Examples include a research project to be completed, gaining status through promotion or recognition, and protecting the environment. Interests are pursued in the setting of social interactions.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 104: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT IS COI?• COI exists when two or more contradictory interests relate to an activity

by an individual or an institution.

• Conflicts of interest are “situations in which financial or other personal considerations may compromise, or have the appearance of compromising, an investigator’s judgement in conducting or reporting research.” AAMC, 1990

• “A conflict of interest in research exists when the individual has interests in the outcome of the research that may lead to a personal advantage and that might therefore, in actuality or appearance compromise the integrity of the research.” NAS, Integrity in Scientific Research

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 105: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

LEVELS OF COI

• Researchers• The REB should assess the likelihood that the

researcher’s judgement may be influenced, or appear to be influenced, by private or personal interests, and assess the seriousness of any harm that is likely to result from such influence or from the mere appearance of undue influence (TCPS, 200)

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 106: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

LEVELS OF COI

Conflicts of Interest by REB Members• It is of the highest importance that members of

the REB avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest .

• For example: when their own research projects are under review by their REB or

• when they have been in direct academic conflict or collaboration with the researcher whose proposal is under review.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 107: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

LEVELS OF COIInstitutional Conflicts of Interest• Situations may arise where the parent organization

has a strong interest in seeing a project approved before all ethical questions are resolved.

• The REB must act independently from the parent organization.

• Institutions must respect the autonomy of the REB and ensure that the REB has the appropriate financial and administrative independence to fulfill its primary duties.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 108: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT COMPRISES COI?• Stock ownership• Paid employment Board membership • Patent applications (pending or actual) • Research grants (from whatever source) • Travel grants and honoraria for speaking or

participation at meetings • Gifts Membership of lobbying organizations• Relationship with the National Research Ethics

Review Committee, or with possible reviewers of the paper

• Relationship with organizations and funding bodies Membership of a government advisory board

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 109: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

IS IT ALWAYS BAD?

• 33% of guideline authors have financial interests in the drug

• 50% guidelines had no COI documentation • 34% of guidelines stated no COIs • 50% had at least one author receiving research

support • 43% had at least one author who had been a paid

speaker for the company Derived from National Guideline Database

Nature, Oct 20,2005

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 110: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

IS IT ALWAYS BAD?

• COIs may result in: 1. Loss of objectivity 2. Reordering of priorities towards applied research 3. Degradation of the nature of science as an open and collegial enterprise 4. Exploitation of trainees 5. Transfer of time and interest to Commercial ventures

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 111: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• In May 2004, the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle a lawsuit by a former employee turned whistle-blower, who was joined in the lawsuit by the U.S. federal government and 11 state governments.

• The lawsuit exposes various marketing practices by the company Warner-Lambert – later bought by Pfizer.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 112: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

• Leading academic researchers were paid to deliver promotional lectures at educational events and to publish favourable reports on the off-label use of its epilepsy drug, Neurontonin.L. Kowalczyk “Pfizer Drug Strategy Probed: States Question Marketing

Tactics for Neurontin,” Boston Globe, October 18, 2002,

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 113: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

CONFLICTS CAN OCCUR AT ALL LEVELS OF RESEARCH

• In reviews/awarding of grant• In ethics review of grant• In recruitment of participants• In analysis of data• In presentation of data

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 114: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE CASE OF NANCY OLIVEIRI

• In 1996, Olivieri found that the drug she was researching (deferiprone, active iron-chelating agent ) at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto was showing unexpected potential risks to some patients in the trials.

• The drug company sponsoring her research abruptly terminated the trials and issued warnings of legal action against Olivieri should she inform her patients at the Hospital for Sick Children of the risks, or publish her findings.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 115: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE CASE OF NANCY OLIVEIRI

• The manufacturer (Apotex) issued more legal warnings to deter Dr Olivieri from communicating this second unexpected risk of L1 to anyone.

• However, she published her findings in the New England Journal of Medicine and

• She was subsequently dismissed from her position as Director of the Hospital for Sick Children Program of Hemoglobinopathies.

• Apotex was planning to donate USD 100 Million to the University of Toronto

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 116: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE CASE OF NANCY OLIVEIRI

• After more than seven years of legal battle, an independent committee of inquiry into the matter vindicated Olivieri and concluded that neither the university nor the hospital offered her appropriate support in her conflict with the drug company.

• Olivieri was reinstated to her position at the Hospital for Sick Children and her actions have also been vindicated by several other independent reports.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 117: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

• Deferiprone which is the only effective orally active iron-chelating agent licensed for the treatment of patients with thalassaemia major and other disorders of transfusional iron overload.

• It is the only alternative to deferoxamine—a drug that has to be given by daily subcutaneous infusions and fails in many patients worldwide because of lack of compliance, high cost, toxicity, or hypersensitivity.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 118: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STORY

• No other clinicians using the drug had found evidence for long-term liver damage and her interpretation of the data was immediately questioned in letters to the New England Journal of Medicine.

• Four of her patients in whom liver fibrosis had been suggested also had hepatitis C and all five had iron overload—both causes of liver fibrosis.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 119: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

LET’S DEBATE…!

• What do you think?

OR ?

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 120: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PRACTICAL STEPS TO RESOLVE

• Disclosure / transparency • Stringent analysis of COI, • Review of contracts between funders and

researchers• Close external monitoring• Blinding of study, when possible• Restrict review of colleague’s work• Peer review of manuscripts

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 121: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

ETHICAL REVIEW OF RESEARCHResearch Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 122: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

WHAT IS ETHICAL REVIEW?

• It is a process by which research proposals are reviewed for their compliance and accordance with the national/international ethical principles & guidelines for research involving human subjects.

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011

Page 123: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

RESEARCH REQUIRING ETHICS REVIEW

All research involving living human subjects by collecting identifiable information or materials including:• Research with human remains, cadavers,

tissues, biological fluids, embryos and foetuses.

• Interviews, surveys and questionnaires.• Secondary data analysis of data from living

human subjects.

Page 124: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

RESEARCH EXEMPT FROM ETHICS REVIEW:

• Research about living individuals in the public arena or artists, based exclusively on publicly available information.

• Participant observation of public demonstrations, political rallies and public meetings.

• Quality assurance studies, performance reviews or normal educational testing.

Page 125: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

PROGRAM EVALUATION/QUALITY ASSURANCE AND RESEARCH

Characteristic Research Evaluation

Goal or Purpose Generate new knowledge for prediction

Program or Policy Decision-Making

Questions/Nature of Problem

To fill a gap in the literature – derived by scientist

Derived to assess impact and outcome of program

Guiding Theory/ Techniques

Hypothesis testing Theory underlying program interventions

Dissemination Scientific Journals Internal and External Reports

Allegiance Scientific Community Funding source, policy makers

Page 126: Research Ethics for JPCFM (Jan2011)

DISCUSSION…Q & A

Research Ethics, Jan. 2011