To What did They Consent? Understanding Consent Among Low Literacy Participants in a Microbicide Feasibility Study in Mazabuka,Zambia

We conducted a study to review the consenting process in a vaginal Microbicide feasibility study conducted in Mazabuka, Zambia. Participants were drawn from those participating in the microbicide study. A questionnaire and focus group discussion were used to collect information on participants understanding of study aims, risks and benefits. Altogether, 200 participants took part in this study. The results of the study showed that while all participants signed or endorsed their thumbprints to the consent forms, full informed consent was not attained from most of the participants since 77% (n = 154) of the participants had numerous questions about the study and 34% (n = 68) did not know who to get in touch with concerning the study. Study objectives were not fully understood by over 61% of the participants. Sixty four percent of the participants were not sure of the risks of taking part in the microbicide study. A significant number thought the study was all about determining their HIV status. Some participants were concerned that their partners were not on the trial as they were convinced that being on the study meant that that they had a lifetime protection from HIV infection. The process of obtaining consent was inadequate as various phases of the study were not fully understood. We recommend the need for researchers to reinforce the consenting process in all studies and more so when studies are conducted in low literacy populations.     

The role and responsibilities of witnesses in the informed consent process

Various mechanisms to ensure the protection of subjects in human research have been suggested, including the presence of witnesses during the informed consent process. For our commentary on the use of witnesses and their potential role and responsibility during the consent process, we start by addressing current guidelines for human subjects research in four Latin American countries. By using examples from public health research, we highlight some of the practical difficulties of using witnessed consent, from becoming a meaningless ritual at one end of the spectrum to the research subject feeling intimidated or coerced to participate at the other. Apart from these practical difficulties, it is unclear what responsibility the witness could and should have. We argue that there are important ethical questions about the role of witnesses that have not been adequately addressed in national and international regulations. This work addresses these gaps and argues that more debate is required to define the role and responsibilities of witnesses in the consent process, their training requirements and whether a universal legal requirement for witnessed consent, regardless of the type of research, is desirable.     

Clinical research law in Jordan: an ethical analysis

An ethical analysis of Jordan's Clinical Research Law, which became effective in 2001, was performed. Accordingly, this paper discusses the major components, key strengths and weaknesses of this law. As an initial effort, the Law addresses important aspects of research ethics and, hence, should serve as an example for other Arab Countries in the Middle East. Unique aspects of the Law include the requirement that those conducting any study have insurance that can compensate for research injuries and a system of fines and punishments for noncompliance with the Law. There are, however, some key items missing in the Jordanian Law. For example, the Law does not mention the requirement of a favourable assessment of risks and benefits, the fair selection of subjects, or articles regarding the protection of the rights and welfare of children and other vulnerable subjects participating in research. The paper concludes with the suggestion that new amendments should be considered for future revisions of the Clinical Research Law in Jordan.     

VIEWS OF THE PROCESS AND CONTENT OF ETHICAL REVIEWS OF HIV VACCINE TRIALS AMONG MEMBERS OF US INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARDS AND SOUTH AFRICAN RESEARCH ETHICS COMMITTEES

Given the ethical controversies concerning HIV vaccine trials (HVTs), we aimed to understand through an exploratory study how members of institutional review boards (IRBs) in the United States (US) and research ethics committees (RECs) in South Africa (SA) view issues concerning the process and content of reviews of these studies. We mailed packets of 20 questionnaires to 12 US IRB chairs and administrators and seven REC chairs to distribute to their members. We received 113 questionnaires (76 from the US and 37 from SA). In both countries, members tended to be white males with advanced academic degrees. Compared to the US, SA members called for ‘major changes’ in HVT protocols more frequently (p = 0.004), and were less likely to think that HVT participants understood risks and benefits (p = 0.033) or informed consent forms (p = 0.000). In both countries, members were divided on several critical issues (e.g. the minimum standard for treatment for HVT participants who became infected during the HVT), but agreed that they needed more training. Of the SA respondents, 40% reported that they were ‘self‐taught’ in ethics. This study, the first we know of to offer quantitative data comparing US vs. non‐US IRBs/RECs, thus suggests key similarities and differences (e.g. compared to SA respondents, US respondents appeared to overestimate participants' understanding of informed consent), along with needs for education. These initial exploratory data in this area have important implications for IRBs, RECs, policy‐makers and scholars concerning future practice, training, policy, and investigations in research ethics, and prevention and treatment of HIV and other diseases in the developing world and elsewhere.     

PROVIDER‐INITIATED HIV TESTING AND COUNSELING IN HEALTH FACILITIES – WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR THE HEALTH AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF PREGNANT WOMEN?

Since the introduction of drugs to prevent vertical transmission of HIV, the purpose of and approach to HIV testing of pregnant women has increasingly become an area of major controversy. In recent years, many strategies to increase the uptake of HIV testing have focused on offering HIV tests to women in pregnancy-related services. New global guidance issued by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) specifically notes these services as an entry point for provider-initiated HIV testing and counseling (PITC). The guidance constitutes a useful first step towards a framework within which PITC sensitive to health, human rights and ethical concerns can be provided to pregnant women in health facilities. However, a number of issues will require further attention as implementation moves forward. It is incumbent on all those involved in the scale up of PITC to ensure that it promotes long-term connection with relevant health services and does not result simply in increased testing with no concrete benefits being accrued by the women being tested. Within health services, this will require significant attention to informed consent, pre- and post-test counseling, patient confidentiality, referrals and access to appropriate services, as well as reduction of stigma and discrimination. Beyond health services, efforts will be needed to address larger societal, legal, policy and contextual issues. The health and human rights of pregnant women must be a primary consideration in how HIV testing is implemented; they can benefit greatly from PITC but only if it is carried out appropriately.     

Ethical issues in medical research in the developing world: a report on a meeting organised by Fondation Mérieux

This paper reports on a multidisciplinary meeting held to discuss ethical issues in medical research in the developing world. Many studies, including clinical trials, are conducted in developing countries with a high burden of disease. Conditions under which this research is conducted vary because of differences in culture, public health, political, legal and social contexts specific to these countries. Research practices, including standards of care for participants, may vary as a result. It is therefore not surprising that ethical issues emerge. This meeting sought to identify and discuss these issues from the perspectives of the many actors in such research, including community representatives, with a view to finding ethical and pragmatic solutions to these issues. Dialogue between these actors was also promoted, with a view to identifying the need to develop such dialogue in future.
Drawing from the experiences of the speakers, the colloquium attempted to outline some answers to several key questions characterising the field today. Experiences related to epidemiologic research, vaccine trials, drug trials, diagnostic tests and to some fundamental ethical issues in health research. Speakers were from different countries, disciplines and professions. The meeting provided a forum for consultation and debate between different ethics actors. Both encouraging findings and challenges emerged.     

SHOULD RAPID TESTS FOR HIV INFECTION NOW BE MANDATORY DURING PREGNANCY? GLOBAL DIFFERENCES IN SCARCITY AND A DILEMMA OF TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCE

Since testing for HIV infection became possible in 1985, testing of pregnant women has been conducted primarily on a voluntary, 'opt-in' basis. Faden, Geller and Powers, Bayer, Wilfert, and McKenna, among others, have suggested that with the development of more reliable testing and more effective therapy to reduce maternal-fetal transmission, testing should become either routine with 'opt-out' provisions or mandatory. We ask, in the light of the new rapid tests for HIV, such as OraQuick, and the development of antiretroviral treatment that can reduce maternal-fetal transmission rates to <2%, whether that time is now. Illustrating our argument with cases from the United States (US), Kenya, Peru, and an undocumented Mexican worker in the US, we show that when testing is accompanied by assured multi-drug therapy for the mother, the argument for opt-out or mandatory testing for HIV in pregnancy is strong, but that it is problematic where testing is accompanied by adverse events such as spousal abuse or by inadequate intrapartum or follow-up treatment. The difference is not a 'double standard', but reflects the presence of conflicts between the health interests of the mother and the fetus--conflicts that would be abrogated by the assurance of adequate, continuing multi-drug therapy. In light of these conflicts, where they still occur, careful processes of informed consent are appropriate, rather than opt-out or mandatory testing.