Search

Many countries consider long-term implications for society.

In 2021, we were designing a research study in Sweden in which we planned to use newspaper articles focusing on children and adolescents under the age of eighteen during the Covid-19 pandemic as empirical material. As we developed this study, an ethical question arose: do studies using journalistic articles that may contain health information about individuals as empirical material have to be approved by an ethics review committee? Sweden, in contrast to other countries, requires the approval of an ethics review committee for the use of publicly available material in research when such material might include sensitive personal data such as health-related information. This case study calls for harmonized laws and policies that support global research by clarifying what kinds of empirical material and what types of research must be assessed by national ethics review committees, including with consideration for children's safety and rights., (© 2024 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

The Belmont Report continues to be held in high regard, and most bioethical analyses conducted in recent years have presumed that it affects United States federal regulations. However, the assessments of the report's creators are sharply divided. Understanding the historic reputation of this monumental report is thus crucial. We first recount the historical context surrounding the creation of this report. Subsequently, we review the process involved in developing ethical guidelines and describe the report's features. Additionally, we analyze the effect of unfolding events on the subsequent creation of federal regulations, especially on gene therapy clinical trials. Moreover, throughout this paper we evaluate the ethical principles outlined in this report and describe how they overlap with the issue of protecting socially vulnerable groups. Based on the analysis, we conclude that the features of the Belmont Report cannot be considered as having affected the basic sections of the federal regulations for ethical reviews that were made uniform in 1981. Nevertheless, regarding the regulations on gene therapy clinical trials-which were at first expected to be applicable to research involving children-in addition to implementing policies regarding the public review of protocols that passed ethical review, this report's principles are clearly reflected in the key notes that should have been referred to when the report was created., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Brazil is among the sixteen countries that conducts the most clinical trials in the world. It has a system to review research ethics with human beings made up by the National Commission on Research Ethics (CONEP) and 779 Research Ethics Committees (RECs), in 2017. The RECs are supposed to follow the same rules regarding their membership, although the RECs that review Social Science and Humanities (SSH) researches must respect Resolution 510/16. There are Brazilian RECs that review SSH and clinical trials. This study aimed to analyze the academic professional profile of the members of the CONEP and Brazilian RECs, their adequacy to the norms, and the challenges faced by the REC's Chairs to compose their membership., Methods: All 779 Brazilian RECs' chairs are invited to fill in a questionnaire informing academic and professional background of the RECs members, and 92 answered. However, eight were excluded for having sent an incomplete questionnaire, leaving a total of 84 participants. The variables were described by absolute and relative frequency. The Chi-square test and ANOVA was used to analyze regional differences related difficulties to compose the committee. The significance level was 95%., Results: The results showed a predominance of members from the biomedical area (57%), while 33% were members of the Social Sciences and Humanities and 5.5% were community representatives. As for the academic degree, there were (45.2%) PhD and (27.9%) masters. The divergences in relation to the guidelines result from the difficulties of having participants in some areas and the little interest in the work carried out by the committees., Conclusion: The RECs are partially adequate to the norms and their performance may be compromised by the low participation of community representatives. The organization of REC's specifics to review biomedical research could improve the ethical review process, ensuring a membership more qualified for these protocols., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Objectives: The Plutocratic Proposal is a novel method of funding early phase clinical trials where a single donor funds the entire trial and in so doing secures a place on it. The aim of this study was to identify and explore concerns that may be raised by UK research ethics committees (RECs) when reviewing clinical trials funded in this way., Design: Empirical ethics combining ethical analysis and qualitative data from three focus groups held online using Frith's symbiotic approach. Data were analysed using inductive thematic approach informed by the study aims and ethical analysis., Participants: 22 participants were recruited: 8 research patient public involvement group members, 7 REC chairs and 7 clinical researchers. All were based in the UK., Results: With one exception, participants thought the Plutocratic Proposal may be 'all things considered' acceptable, providing their concerns were met, primary of which was upholding scientific integrity. Other concerns discussed related to the acceptability of the donor securing a place on the trial including: whether this was an unfair distribution of benefits, disclosing the identity of the donor as the funder, protecting the donor from exploitation and funding a single study with multiple donors on the same terms. Some misgivings fell outside the usual REC purview: detrimental impact of donors of bad character, establishing the trustworthiness of the matching agency and its processes and optimising research funding and resources. Despite their concerns, participants recognised that because the donor funds the whole trial, others would also potentially benefit from participating., Conclusions: We identified concerns about the Plutocratic Proposal. UK RECs may be open to approving studies if these can be addressed. Existing governance processes will do some of this work, but additional REC guidance, particularly in relation to donors securing a place on the trial, may be necessary to help RECs navigate ethical concerns consistently., Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare funding for this project from UK Spine. HD is employed by the University of Warwick. KS was a doctoral researcher in receipt of a research stipend from the University of Warwick until September 2021 when she took up a post with the HRA but does not now represent their views. KS, DN, AM and HD received funding from UK Spine for time contributed to this study. In the past three years, HD has received unrelated research funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and CIFAR, and is an unpaid member of DMS Ethics Committee, the Ethics Advisory Group of Birmingham Women’s and Children’s Hospitals Foundation Trust and NHS BT Deceased Donor Family Tissue Advisory Group. DN is a self-employed communications specialist currently working on an unrelated, fixed term contract as Head of Communications for the University of Warwick. In the past 3 years, he has had contracts with Sutton Council, Newham Council, the Scouting Association, the London Assembly and Plymouth Council. He is retained by Sutton Council to develop the London Cancer Hub. AM is a freelance writer, illustrator and teacher. Together, AM and DN established and raised funds for iCancer, a not-for-profit patients support group. SB’s salary is part-funded by the Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre and has provided paid consultancy in the field of Sjogren’s clinical trial design in the past three years to Abbvie, Astra Zeneca, Galapagos and Novartis., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: This study aimed to determine the characteristics of ethical review and recruitment processes, concerning the inclusion of adults with capacity-affecting conditions and associated communication difficulties in ethically sound research, under the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) for England and Wales., Design: A documentary-based survey was conducted focusing on adults with capacity-affecting conditions and associated communication difficulties. The survey investigated: (1) retrospective studies during the implementation period of the MCA (2007-2017); (2) prospective applications to MCA-approved Research Ethics Committees (RECs) during a 12-month period (2018-19); (3) presentational and linguistic content of participant information sheets used with this population., Setting: Studies conducted and approved in England and Wales., Sample: Studies focused on adults with the following capacity-affecting conditions: acquired brain injury; aphasia after stroke; autism; dementia; intellectual disabilities; mental health conditions. The sample comprised: (1) 1605 studies; (2) 83 studies; (3) 25 participant information sheets., Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures: The primary outcome was the inclusion/exclusion of adults with capacity-affecting conditions from studies. The secondary outcome was the provisions deployed to support their inclusion., Results: The retrospective survey showed an incremental rise in research applications post-MCA implementation from 2 (2012) to 402 (2017). The prospective survey revealed exclusions of people on the bases of: 'lack of capacity' (n=21; 25%); 'communication difficulties' (n=5; 6%); 'lack of consultee' (n=11; 13%); and 'limited English' (n=17; 20%). REC recommendations focused mainly on participant-facing documentation. The participant information sheets were characterised by inconsistent use of images, typography and layout, volume of words and sentences; some simplified language content, but variable readability scores., Conclusions: People with capacity-affecting conditions and associated communication difficulties continue to be excluded from research, with recruitment efforts largely concentrated around participant-facing documentation. There is a need for a more nuanced approach if such individuals are to be included in ethically sound research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Single-site review means protection and efficiency.

As part of a larger study, Australian Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members and managers were surveyed about their decision-making and views about social research studies with child participants. Responses of 229 HREC members and 42 HREC managers are reported. While most HREC members had received ethical training, HREC training and guidelines specific to research involving children were rare. Most applications involving children had to go through a full ethical review, but few adverse events were reported to HRECs regarding the conduct of the studies. Revisions to study proposals requested by HRECs were mostly related to consent processes and age-appropriate language. One-third of HREC members said that they would approve research on any topic. Most were also concerned that the methodology was appropriate, and the risks and benefits were clearly articulated. Specific training and guidance are needed to increase HREC members' confidence to judge ethical research with children.

Empirical evidence of the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research in Malaysia is limited. We have conducted a convergent mixed methods research, which comprises an online survey and semistructured interviews to examine the challenges in the ethical review of clinical and biomedical research. Data collected reveal that the ethics review process is inconsistent, duplicate, and inadequate. The results indicate a strong need for a centralized ethical review mechanism and a national system for mutual recognition of ethics reviews to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the ethics review system in Malaysia. A joint research ethics committee review between Malaysia and sponsoring countries for multinational research should also be encouraged as it could address the concerns of the lack of expertise and training.

The elements of ethical review related to clinical research of acupuncture and moxibustion is discussed to provide ideas for various institutions to carry out relevant ethical review. It is believed that the ethical review of clinical research of acupuncture and moxibustion needs to focus on the specificity of acupuncture and moxibustion. Starting from the basic theory of traditional Chinese medicine, the theory of meridians and acupoints and the theory of syndrome differentiation along meridians, the key contents of ethical review such as intervention methods, grouping design and placebo control should be considered, so as to standardize the clinical research of acupuncture and moxibustion and protect the health and rights and interests of participants.

Background: During the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic there was an urgent need for accelerated review of COVID-19 research by Medical Research Ethics Committees (MRECs). In the Netherlands this led to the implementation of so-called 'fast-track-review-procedures' (FTRPs) to enable a swift start of urgent and relevant research. The objective of this study is to evaluate FTRPs of MRECs in the Netherlands during the COVID-19 pandemic and to compare them with the regular review procedures (RRPs)., Methods and Findings: An explanatory sequential mixed method study was conducted. Online questionnaires and four group interviews were conducted among MREC representatives and investigators of COVID-19 research. In addition, data from a national research registration system was requested. Main outcome measures are differences in timelines, quality of the review and satisfaction between FTRPs and RRPs. The total number of review days was shorter in FTRP (median 10.5) compared to RRPs (median 98.0). Review days attributable to the MRECs also declined in FTRPs (median 8.0 versus 50.0). This shortening can be explained by installing ad hoc (sub)committees, full priority given to COVID-19 research, regular research put on hold, online review meetings and administrative leniency. The shorter timelines did not affect the perceived quality of the review and ethical and legal aspects were not weighted differently. Both MREC representatives and investigators were generally satisfied with the review of COVID-19 research. Weaknesses identified were the lack of overview of COVID-19 research and central collaboration and coordination, the delay of review of regular research, and limited reachability of secretariats., Conclusions: This study shows that accelerated review is feasible during emergency situations. We did not find evidence that review quality was compromised and both investigators and MRECs were content with the FTRP. To improve future medical ethical review during pandemic situations and beyond, distinguishing main and side issues, working digitally, and (inter)national collaboration and coordination are important., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

This study aims to characterise Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members' perceptions on five main themes associated with ethics reviews, namely, the nature of research, ethical/moral issues, assent, participants' risk and HREC prerogatives issues. Three hundred and sixteen HREC members from over 200 HRECs throughout Australia responded to an online questionnaire survey. The results show that in general, HREC members' beliefs are reasoned and align with sound principles of ethical reviews. There seems to be a disposition for living up to ethical/moral values, avoiding the issue of consent waivers and respecting participants' welfare, as well as a sense of ambiguity about HREC prerogatives. Problematic areas were a tendency towards over-valuing quantitative research methods for their perceived validity and a neutral view on issuing consent waivers to participants with intellectual disability and, finally, the belief that research that limits disclosure, plans deception or actively conceals is morally unjustifiable. Implications for professional development and policy-making are discussed., (© 2021. Crown.)

In 2018, we conducted a study on 121 ethics review committee offices in Japan to examine the state of "central review" in non-interventional studies and discern any challenges regarding its introduction. Of the 452 offices that were invited to participate, 121 responded (26.8% response rate), and 35 (28.9%) had records of furnishing contracting agreements with ethical reviews by other research institutions. The merits of central reviewing include easing the burden on ethics review committees, improving the quality level and consistency of ethical reviews, and enhancing the efficiency in conducting them. The demerits include increased administrative overheads and work for researchers, such as preparing application forms and checking institutional requirements, and a lack of clarity regarding who is responsible for conducting the research, which makes it is less desirable for institutions to have their own ethics review committees. This study revealed that the comprehensive introduction of central review in non-interventional studies continues to encounter many hurdles, and promoting central review requires overcoming these challenges one at a time. The Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects will be revised in 2021 to require central review as a part of ethical reviews for non-interventional studies. In the future, central reviews of non-interventional studies will need to be of high quality and conducted efficiently, and this will require research institutions to utilize relevant central review guidelines and checklists., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this article.

Background: Public health emergency is vulnerable time where maintaining ethical principles is obligatory while doing research, on the other hand, it is the same time when breach in ethics is much likely whenever a researcher is unaware, unprepared or hastens to do research. The aim of this study was to assess ethical issues of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related research proposals submitted during the early stages of pandemic in Nepal., Methods: Retrospective analysis of COVID-19 related research proposals and their informed consent document submitted to the ethical review board at Nepal Health Research Council was done for the study. The analysis was done as per the National Ethical Guidelines, Standard Operating Procedure for Health Research in Nepal and World Health Organization guidelines for infectious disease outbreak, 2016 under ethically relevant headings. Descriptive data were analyzed in SPSS v24., Results: The major issues were observed in the informed consent documents where 55% were lacking principal investigator's contact information, 68% not having participant selection criteria, 70% without clear informed consent taking process, 57% without explanation of possible risks. Similarly, 68% of the interventional studies' consent form didn't mention possible adverse events and mitigation mechanisms., Conclusions: Most of the research proposals related to COVID-19 were devoid of major ethical elements which took longer time for receiving approval and eventually delayed the opportunity for evidence generation in critical time. More attention is needed to increase awareness and to develop capacity of researchers, reviewers, ethics committees and relevant stakeholders at the time of health emergencies.

Background: This paper highlights the issues that one of the 90 Italian Research Ethics Committees (RECs) might encounter during the approval phase of a clinical trial to identify corrective and preventive actions for promoting a more efficient review process and ensuring review quality. Publications on the subject from Italy and the rest of Europe are limited; encouraging constructive debate can improve RECs' service to the subject of the clinical trial., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed a cohort of 822 clinical trial protocols, initially reviewed by REC, from June 2014 to December 2018. Data collected for each protocol were type of trial, sample size, use of placebo, number and kind of revisions requested by the REC before approval, and time taken for approval. Data for each protocol were collected by a trained clinical research assistant using the REC's files and electronic archives., Results: Almost 45% of the reviewed studies (374/822) required clarifications, significant changes to the documentation, or minor changes before final approval., Conclusions: Preventive measures are needed to reduce the number of requested corrections and thus also the time required for approval, while maintaining review quality. All critical points and proposals presented in this paper require harmonization through updates to European regulations, as regulatory harmonization produces better compliance with rules and reduces the number of changes required before the trials' final approval. Such updates include the development of standardized formats for informed consent, the verification of any evidence in favor of using off-label treatments over placebo as comparators, using multidisciplinary staff in clinical trials with children and adolescents, improving the legal definition of RECs to assign responsibilities and ensure independence, and providing guidance for RECs to engage clinical research assistants in internal audits.

Dementia poses important medical and societal challenges, and of all health risks people face in life, dementia is one of the most feared. Recent research indicates that up to about 40% of all cases of dementia might be preventable. A series of environmental, social, and medical risk-factors have been identified that should be targeted from midlife onwards when people are still cognitively healthy. At first glance, this seems not merely advisable, but even imperative. However, these new developments trigger a series of new ethical questions and concerns which have hardly been addressed to date. Pro-active ethical reflection, however, is crucial to ensure that the interests and well-being of those affected, ultimately all of us, are adequately respected. This is the goal of the current contribution. Against the background of a concrete case in primary dementia prevention, it provides a systematic overview of the current ethical literature and sketches an ethical research agenda. First, possible benefits of increased well-being must be balanced with the burdens of being engaged in particularly long-term interventions for which it is unclear whether they will ever pay out on a personal level. Second, while knowledge about one's options to maintain brain health might empower people, it might also undermine autonomy, put high social pressure on people, medicalize healthy adults, and stigmatize those who still develop dementia. Third, while synergistic effects might occur, the ideals of dementia prevention might also conflict with other health and non-health related values people hold in life.

There has been growing consensus to develop relevant guidance to improve the ethical review of global health policy and systems research (HPSR) and address the current absence of formal ethics guidance.

Several frameworks assist research ethics committees (RECs) in risk assessment of medical studies. However, little is known about how researchers describe risks of the procedures in study protocols and participant information sheets. We examined 349 study protocols and participant information sheets submitted to an REC and evaluated the risk assessments performed for 1,510 study procedures. Risks had been assessed for 399 (26%) procedures in study protocols and for 425 (28%) procedures in participant information sheets. Physical risks were assessed six times more frequently than psychological risks. Risks of medical procedures are not always detailed in study protocols or participant information sheets. Risk descriptions of procedures believed to be familiar to potential participants may be omitted.

Research ethics boards (REBs) are charged with applying ethical standards to protect the rights and interests of research subjects. Little, however, is known about how REB members perceive probable impacts of research participation for subjects. Drawing on in-depth interviews with 40 Canadian REB members, we identify three frequently reported epistemic strategies, including reliance on a local REB culture or ethos , use of resident authorities , and protective imagination . Far less commonly described strategies included direct or indirect contact with research subjects. REB members also reflected upon significant gaps in their knowledge and thus the importance of knowing what we don't know . Recommendations arising from this support an evidence-based practice for ethics review involving clear epistemic standards for REBs learning about subjects' experiences.

Guiding legislation and associated bureaucracy for the ethical review of clinical trials observational studies and food related research play an important role in the competitiveness of a nation in the face of tough global competition to attract sponsors and investigators. This is of particular relevance in the case of multicentre trials and multidisciplinary research. Accordingly, in this report we tried to gather in-depth knowledge of the current role and practices of ethics committees nationwide in both clinical and research settings. This mini-review aims to describe the formulation and organization of ethical committees in Italy in order to provide a focus for deliberations on ethical issues in medical and scientific research in line with human rights, as set out in the European Union charter. Furthermore, we evaluated the impact of an institution's ethical committee intervention on reducing the time required to obtain an opinion from Research Ethics Committees by guiding investigators in addressing ethical issues in their proposed studies.

Scientists seeking to conduct research with human subjects must first submit their proposals to research ethics committees (Institutional Review Boards [IRBs], in the United States). Some of these studies pose risks to "bystanders," i.e., people who may be affected by the research but who are not enrolled as study subjects. Should IRBs expand their scope to include oversight over possible harms to bystanders as well as research subjects? This paper presents arguments against this step. Prior review of research with human subjects, despite its evident burden on the research enterprise, is a necessary caution, because the tension between the objectives of humane treatment of research subjects and sound scientific design and procedure has in the past led to serious abuses. This rationale is inapplicable in the case of bystanders. Moreover, in view of the many and varied effects of both research practices and scientific advances on the broader public over time, those who may be considered to be "bystanders" may potentially expand without limit; requiring IRBs to anticipate these distant and long-term effects as part of prior ethical review could greatly increase its burden and its deterrent effect on research. While conducting research without concern for serious potential harm to bystanders may be irresponsible and unethical, expanding the scope of prior review by IRBs to include risks to bystanders is not required by the principles governing human subjects research, and the costs and burdens of this expansion may outweigh any expected gains., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Risks and benefit evaluation for controlled human infection studies, where healthy volunteers are deliberately exposed to infectious agents to evaluate vaccine efficacy, should be explicit, systematic, thorough, and non-arbitrary. Decision analysis promotes these qualities using four steps: (1) determining explicit criteria and measures for evaluation, (2) identifying alternatives to the study, (3) defining the models used to estimate the measures for each alternative, and (4) running the models to produce the estimates and compare the alternatives. In this paper, we describe how decision analysis might be applied by funders and regulators, as well as by others contemplating the use of novel controlled human infection studies for vaccine development and evaluation., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective The aim of this study was to describe timelines and challenges encountered in obtaining ethics and governance approvals for an Australian multicentre audit study involving 100 public (n=22) and private (n=78) sites from three health sectors and all eight Australian states and territories. Methods We determined and compared the processes, documentation and number of business days required to prepare applications and obtain research ethics and governance approvals. Results In total, the full ethics and governance process (calculated from the date the first application was started to the date the final approval was granted) took 203 business days (79% of the study timeline). Standard risk ethics applications (n=4) took a median of 17 business days (range 3-35 days) to prepare and 32 business days (range 17-67 days) to be approved; expedited ethics applications (n=4) took a median of 5 business days (range 1-20 days) to prepare and 10 business days (range 1-44 days) to be approved. Governance approvals (n=23) took a median of 27 business days (range 4-63 days) to prepare and 20 business days (range 4-61 days) to be approved. Challenges included the lack of a nationwide single-site ethical review process, the extensive time required to duplicate content across applications, variability in application requirements and submission systems, and contract negotiations. Conclusion Further improvements are needed to reduce duplication and increase the efficiency of Australian ethics and governance review processes. What is known about the topic? The process for obtaining ethics approval for multicentre research has been streamlined through the introduction of single-site ethics review. However, the process of gaining ethics and governance approvals for national multicentre research continues to be time-consuming, resource-intensive and duplicative. What does this paper add? This is the first study to examine the challenges of obtaining ethics and governance approvals for a non-interventional multicentre study involving three health sectors (hospital, aged care, general practice), both private and public services and all eight Australian jurisdictions. Previous examinations of Australian multicentre studies have considered only one health sector, focused on the public system and/or were not national in scope. What are the implications for practitioners? Researchers and funders need to be aware of the considerable time, resources and costs involved in gaining research ethics and governance approvals for multicentre studies and include this in budgets and study timelines. Policy makers and administrators of ethics and governance review processes must address barriers to conducting multicentre research in Australia.

The increased use of big data in the medical field has shifted the way in which biomedical research is designed and carried out. The novelty of techniques and methods brought by big data research brings new challenges to institutional review boards (IRBs). Yet it is unclear if IRBs should be the responsible oversight bodies for big data research and, if so, which criteria they should use. A large but heterogenous set of ethics guidelines and normative responses have emerged to address these issues. In this study, we conducted a scoping review of soft-law documents and guidelines with the aim of assessing ongoing normative efforts that are proliferating in this domain. We also synthesize a set of recurrent guidelines that could work as a baseline to create a harmonized process for big data research ethics., (© 2020 by The Hastings Center. All rights reserved.)

High-quality clinical study on traditional Chinese medicine is of great significance to effectively control new public health emergencies represented by outbreaks of infectious diseases and ensure people's health and safety, but it still faces a series of ethical issues. Based on the seven core values of equity, good deeds, effectiveness, respect for individuals, freedom, reciprocity, and solida-rity proposed in the Guidelines for Management of Ethical Issues in Outbreaks of Infectious Diseases, this article emphasizes the characteristics and laws of clinical studies on traditional Chinese medicine. Main points of ethical review of traditional Chinese medicine were summarized in the aspects of overall concept, syndrome differentiation and treatment, prevention before disease onset, cultural value, and clinical basis. Based on the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19), we collected relevant registered Chinese medicine clinical studies, summarized the core issues of the ethics review for COVID-19, and further improved the traditional Chinese medicine ethics review system and resources, so as to better serve ethical review and scientific studies in public health emergencies.

Purpose: The study considers the ethical review of the European Union (EU) clinical trials (CTs) legislation, namely the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR) (EU) 2014∕536, the Directive 2001∕20∕EC and the "Guidance on the management of clinical trials during the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic" (GMCT) (version 3) issued on 28 April 2020 by the European authorities in the field., Background: The Directive 2001∕20∕EC focuses the legal provisions for the conduct of CTs by acknowledging the screening role of the Ethics Committees (ECs) and of the national competent authorities (NCA) in the Member States (MS) to protect the CT subject and the personal data., Content: The present article displays the ethical requirements for conducting, monitoring and reporting of the CTs by raising awareness on the: (i) new conceptual framework of the "clinical trial", "low-intervention clinical trial", "non-interventional study" and "ethics committee"; (ii) ethical considerations addressed in Part I and Part II of the assessment report; (iii) evaluation of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the current regulatory framework., Conclusions: The CTR stimulates the EU clinical research and enables an independent control with regard to the respect of the interests of the CT subject.

Background: All studies classified as research involving human participants require research ethics review. Most regulation and guidance on ethical oversight of research involving human participants was written for pharmacotherapy interventions. Interpretation of such guidance for cluster-randomized trials and stepped-wedge trials, which commonly evaluate complex non-therapeutic interventions such as knowledge translation, public health, or health service delivery interventions, can pose challenges to researchers and regulators., Current Guidance: The Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster-Randomized Trials provides guidance on the ethical oversight and consent procedures for cluster-randomized trials, and while not explicit, this includes stepped-wedge trials. Yet, stepped-wedge trials have unique characteristics that differentiate them from standard cluster-randomized trials. In particular, they can be used to evaluate knowledge translation interventions within the context of a routine health system rollout; they may have a non-randomized design; and the decision to implement the intervention is not always made by the researcher. Many stepped-wedge trials do not undergo ethical review and do not report trial registration. This suggests that those undertaking these studies and research ethics committees perceive them as non-research activities., Recommendations: Through an ethical analysis of two case studies, we argue that stepped-wedge trials, like parallel arm cluster trials, are systematic investigations designed to produce generalizable knowledge. We contend that stepped-wedge trials usually include human research participants, which may be patients, health care providers, or both. Stepped-wedge trials are therefore research involving human participants for the purpose of ethical review. Nevertheless, the use of a waiver or alteration of consent may be appropriate in many stepped-wedge trials due to the infeasibility of obtaining informed consent and the low-risk nature of the interventions. To ensure that traditional ethical principles such as respect for persons are upheld, these studies must undergo research ethics review.

There is limited literature on the opinions and perspectives of researchers on the ethical issues in biobank research in South Africa. This study aimed to explore researchers' perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in South Africa. An online survey was conducted among researchers and scientists at Stellenbosch University and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. The majority of researchers opined that broad consent is appropriate for biobank research. However, there was no consensus on the necessity for re-consent. Researchers were also in agreement that issues concerning informed consent and future use of samples require thorough discussions during the ethical review process. Overall, the attitude of researchers on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research was positive and ethically informed.

Researchers and research ethics committees share a common goal of conducting ethically sound research. However, little is known of researchers' experiences in obtaining ethics approval for suicide-related studies. This study aimed to investigate what concerns researchers have received on suicide-related ethics applications and how they dealt with it. Thirty-four respondents, recruited through the International Association for Suicide Prevention, filled out an online survey. The study found that researchers have received important concerns regarding potential harm and researchers' responsibilities to participants. Researchers modified their application and/or consulted their research ethics committee in response to the concerns, which had a positive/neutral impact on their given study. Anticipating concerns and improved collaboration between researchers and research ethics committees should protect the quality of suicide prevention research.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Armed conflict in Darfur, west Sudan since 2003 has led to the influx of about 100 international humanitarian UN and non-governmental organizations to help the affected population. Many of their humanitarian interventions included the collection of human personal data and/or biosamples, and these activities are often associated with ethical issues. A systematic review was conducted to assess the proportion of publicly available online reports of the research activities undertaken on humans in Darfur between 2004 and 2012 that mention obtaining ethical approval and/or informed consent., Methods: This systematic review is based on a systematic literature search of Complex Emergency Database, ReliefWeb, PubMed), followed by a hand search for the hardcopies of the eligible reports archived in the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) in Brussels., Results: The online search showed that out of the 68 eligible studies, 13.2% (9) reported gaining ethical approval and 42.6% (29) that an informed consent was obtained from the participants. The CRED search included 138 eligible reports. None of these reports mentioned gaining ethical approval and 17 (12.3%) mentioned obtaining informed consent from their participants., Conclusions: The proportion of studies reporting ethical review and informed consent was smaller than might be expected, so we suggest five possible explanations for these findings. This review provides empirical evidence that can help in planning ethical conduct of research in humanitarian settings.

Background: Ethical approval (EA) must be obtained before medical research can start. We describe the differences in EA for an pseudonymous, non-interventional, observational European study., Methods: Sixteen European national coordinators (NCs) of the international study on very old intensive care patients answered an online questionnaire concerning their experience getting EA., Results: N = 8/16 of the NCs could apply at one single national ethical committee (EC), while the others had to apply to various regional ECs and/or individual hospital institutional research boards (IRBs). The time between applying for EA and the first decision varied between 7 days and 300 days. In 9/16 informed consent from the patient was not deemed necessary; in 7/16 informed consent was required from the patient or relatives. The upload of coded data to a central database required additional information in 14/16. In 4/16 the NCs had to ask separate approval to keep a subject identification code list to de-pseudonymize the patients if questions would occur. Only 2/16 of the NCs agreed that informed consent was necessary for this observational study. Overall, 6/16 of the NCs were satisfied with the entire process and 8/16 were (very) unsatisfied. 11/16 would welcome a European central EC that would judge observational studies for all European countries., Discussion: Variations in the process and prolonged time needed to get EA for observational studies hampers inclusion of patients in some European countries. This might have a negative influence on the external validity. Further harmonization of ethical approval process across Europe is welcomed for low-risk observational studies., Conclusion: Getting ethical approval for low-risk, non-interventional, observational studies varies enormously across European countries.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: Ensuring that countries have adequate research capacities is essential for an effective and efficient response to infectious disease outbreaks. The need for ethical principles and values embodied in international research ethics guidelines to be upheld during public health emergencies is widely recognized. Public health officials, researchers and other concerned stakeholders also have to carefully balance time and resources allocated to immediate treatment and control activities, with an approach that integrates research as part of the outbreak response. Under such circumstances, research "ethics preparedness" constitutes an important foundation for an effective response to infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies., Main Text: A two-day workshop was convened in March 2018 by the World Health Organisation Global Health Ethics Team and the African coaLition for Epidemic Research, Response and Training, with representatives of National Ethics Committees, to identify practical processes and procedures related to ethics review preparedness. The workshop considered five areas where work might be undertaken to facilitate rapid and sound ethics review: preparing national ethics committees for outbreak response; pre-review of protocols; multi-country review; coordination between national ethics committees and other key stakeholders; data and benefit sharing; and export of samples to third countries. In this paper, we present the recommendations that resulted from the workshop. In particular, the participants recommended that Ethics Committees would develop a formal national standard operating procedure for emergency response ethical review; that there is a need to clarify the terminology and expectations of pre-review of generic protocols and agree upon specific terminology; that there is a need to explore mechanisms for multi-country emergency ethical consultation, and to establish procedures for communication between national ethics committees and other oversight bodies and public health authorities. In addition, it was suggested that ethics committees should request from researchers, at a minimum, a preliminary data sharing and sample sharing plan that outlines the benefit to the population from which data and samples are to be drawn. This should be followed in due time by a full plan., Conclusion: It is hoped that the national ethics committees, supported by the WHO, relevant collaborative research consortia and external funding agencies, will work towards bringing these recommendations into practice, for supporting the conduct of effective research during outbreaks.

In South Africa, biomedical research cannot commence until it has been reviewed and approved by a local research ethics committee (REC). There remains a dearth of empirical data on the nature and frequency of ethical issues raised by such committees. This study sought to identify ethical concerns typically raised by two South African RECs. Meeting minutes for 180 protocols reviewed between 2009 and 2014 were coded and analyzed using a preexisting framework. Results showed that the most frequent queries involved informed consent, respect for participants, and scientific validity. Interestingly, administrative issues (non-ethical) such as missing researchers' CVs and financial contracts emerged more frequently than ethical questions such as favorable risk/benefit ratio and fair participant selection. Although not generalizable to all RECs, our data provide insights into two South African RECs' review concerns. More education and awareness of the actual ethical issues typically raised by such committees might help improve review outcomes and relationships between researchers and RECs.