The role of community engagement in addressing bystander risks in research: The case of a Zika virus controlled human infection study

There is limited guidance on how to assess the ethical acceptability of research risks that extend beyond research participants to third parties (or “research bystanders”). Community or stakeholder engagement has been proposed as one way to address potential harms to community members, including bystanders. Despite widespread agreement on the importance of community engagement in biomedical research, this umbrella term includes many different goals and approaches, agreement on which is ethically required or recommended for a particular context. We analyse the case of a potential Zika virus human challenge trial to assess whether and how community engagement can help promote the ethical acceptability of research posing risks to bystanders. We conclude that, in addition to having intrinsic value, community engagement can improve the identification of bystander risks, effective approaches to minimizing them, and transparency about bystander risks for host communities.     

Community engagement in global health research that advances health equity

Community engagement is gaining prominence in global health research. So far, a philosophical rationale for why researchers should perform community engagement during such research has not been provided by ethics scholars. Its absence means that conducting community engagement is still often viewed as no more than a ‘good idea’ or ‘good practice’ rather than ethically required. In this article, we argue that shared health governance can establish grounds for requiring the engagement of low‐ and middle‐income country (LMIC) community members in global health research, where such research aims to help reduce health disparities. This philosophical basis has important implications for the ethical goals ascribed to engagement and the approach adopted to undertake it. We suggest the ethical goals of engagement in equity‐oriented global health research should include: (a) generating research topics and questions that reflect the key problems disadvantaged groups face in accessing healthcare, services and broader social determinants of health and (b) promoting the translation of research findings into policy and practice in ways that benefit the health of disadvantaged groups. We propose engagement practice should have the following features: deliberation with LMIC community members to make a range of project decisions, beginning with setting research topics and questions; inclusion of members of disadvantaged groups and those with the power to change policy and practice to benefit them; and purposeful structuring of deliberations to minimize the impact of power disparities between LMIC community members. Finally, we reflect on how these features differ from those typical of much current community engagement practice in LMICs.     

Community Members' Engagement with and Involvement in Genomic Research: Lessons to Learn from the Field

In this paper, we describe the potential role laypersons on ethics committees can play in ensuring community concerns are addressed in the design and implementation of genomic research. We draw inferences from the outcome of an empirical study of the impact of training of laypersons to address community engagement issues in ethics review of research protocol. While this paper does not advocate a particular solution, it describes the importance of community engagement in genomic research, the current limitations there are in engaging communities in the design of these research projects and how communities can be indirectly engaged in the design and implementation of genomic research through the engagement of laypersons on ethics committees. However, to ensure that these laypersons can play this role, their capacity needs to be built to play this role appropriately. There is evidence to show that where resources are invested in building the capacity of laypersons to play their role as community ‘watchdogs’ in research, they play this role aptly. Community engagement is important in genomic research as genomic researchers will increasingly require community perspectives in critical ethics decision making.     

Transformative Knowledge Transfer Through Empowering and Paying Community Researchers

Environmental research is often conducted independently of the community in which the environment is situated, with transfer of results into policy and on-ground action occurring independently of the community's interests or aspirations. Increasingly the need for greater community involvement in the research process has been recognized. For community members, however, such engagement usually involves trade-offs. While it is often assumed that community members should participate voluntarily because they will gain from the research, any benefits from knowledge, understanding and a capacity to influence the research have to be offset against time and potential loss of unremunerated intellectual property. We argue, using case studies from tropical Australia and Africa, that a more effective means of engagement and knowledge transfer is training and remuneration of community members as coresearchers. This engagement is much more than payment for labor—it is investment in local intellectual property and requires researcher humility, power-sharing and recognition that access to research funding provides no moral or intellectual authority. Further, we argue that, for effective adoption of research results, community members need to be part of negotiated agreements on the initial nature of the research to ensure it answers questions of genuine local relevance and that local researchers have the capacity to place locally conducted research into a wider context. We argue that immediate rewards for involvement not only secure engagement but, where appropriate, are likely to lead to effective implementation of research results, enhanced local capacity and greater equity in intellectual power-sharing.     

Deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with malaria parasites: Perceptions and experiences of participants and other stakeholders in a Kenyan-based malaria infection study

Controlled human malaria infection (CHMI) studies involve the deliberate infection of healthy volunteers with malaria parasites under controlled conditions to study immune responses and/or test drug or vaccine efficacy. An empirical ethics study was embedded in a CHMI study at a Kenyan research programme to explore stakeholders’ perceptions and experiences of deliberate infection and moral implications of these. Data for this qualitative study were collected through focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and non-participant observation. Sixty-nine participants were involved, including CHMI study volunteers, community representatives and research staff. Data were managed using QSR Nvivo 10 and analysed using an inductive-deductive approach, guided by ethics literature. CHMI volunteers had reasonable understanding of the study procedures. Decisions to join were influenced by study incentives, trust in the research institution, their assessment of associated burdens and motivation to support malaria vaccine development. However, deliberate malaria infection was a highly unusual research strategy for volunteers, community representatives and some study staff. Volunteers’ experiences of physical, emotional and social burdens or harms were often greater than anticipated initially, and fluctuated over time, related to specific procedures and events. Although unlikely to deter volunteers' participation in similar studies in furture, we argue that the dissonance between level of understanding of the burdens involved and actual experiences are morally relevant in relation to community engagement, informed consent processes, and ongoing support for volunteers and research staff. We further argue that ethics oversight of CHMI studies should take account of these issues in deciding whether consent, engagement and the balance of benefits and harms are reasonable in a given context.     

Bystanders and ethical review of research: Proceed with caution

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.     

Constructing citizen engagement in health research priority‐setting to attend to dynamics of power and difference

Engaging citizens is vital to achieving people‐centred health research. This paper aims to put attention to dynamics of power and dynamics of difference back at the centre of citizen engagement in health research priority‐setting. Without attention to power and difference, engagement can lead to presence without voice and voice without influence, particularly for disadvantaged and marginalised groups. By analysing six key bodies of literature, the paper first identifies the different components of engagement—who initiates, for what purpose, who participates, and how they participate—and the dynamics of power and dynamics of difference relevant to them. For each component of engagement, the ethical considerations relating to those dimensions of power and dimensions of difference are characterised for the research priority‐setting context and preliminary guidance on how they might be addressed is provided. An initial framework comprised of a series of questions reflecting these ethical considerations has been developed for use by researchers and citizens when designing engagement processes for research projects. Where researchers and citizens attend to the framework's questions and then revise their priority‐setting processes’ design to better represent diversity and mitigate power disparities, more inclusive citizen engagement is promoted. Disadvantaged and marginalised groups are more likely to be present and heard, which, in turn, will help generate research projects with topics and questions that encompass and more accurately reflect their health needs.     

Considerations for stakeholder engagement and COVID‐19 related clinical trials’ conduct in sub‐Saharan Africa

The aim of this study is to determine how stakeholder engagement can be adapted for the conduct of COVID‐19‐related clinical trials in sub‐Saharan Africa. Nine essential stakeholder engagement practices were reviewed: formative research; stakeholder engagement plan; communications and issues management plan; protocol development; informed consent process; standard of prevention for vaccine research and standard of care for treatment research; policies on trial‐related physical, psychological, financial, and/or social harms; trial accrual, follow‐up, exit trial closure and results dissemination; and post‐trial access to trial products or procedures. The norms, values, and practices of collectivist societies in Sub‐Saharan Africa and the low research literacy pose challenges to the conduct of clinical trials. Civil‐society organizations, members of community advisory boards and ethics committees, young persons, COVID‐19 survivors, researchers, government, and the private sector are assets for the implementation and translation of COVID‐19 related clinical trials. Adapting ethics guidelines to the socio‐cultural context of the region can facilitate achieving the aim of stakeholder engagement.     

An ethics of anthropology-informed community engagement with COVID-19 clinical trials in Africa

The COVID-19 pandemic has reinforced the critical role of ethics and community engagement in designing and conducting clinical research during infectious disease outbreaks where no vaccine or treatment already exists. In reviewing current practices across Africa, we distinguish between three distinct roles for community engagement in clinical research that are often conflated: 1) the importance of community engagement for identifying and honouring cultural sensitivities; 2) the importance of recognising the socio-political context in which the research is proposed; and 3) the importance of understanding what is in the interest of communities recruited to research according to their own views and values. By making these distinctions, we show that current practice of clinical research could draw on anthropology in ways which are sometimes unnecessary to solicit local cultural values, overlook the importance of socio-political contexts and wider societal structures within which it works, potentially serving to reinforce unjust political or social regimes, and threaten to cast doubt on the trustworthiness of the research. We argue that more discerning anthropological engagement as well as wider collaboration with other social scientists and those working in the humanities is urgently needed to improve the ethics of current biomedical and pharmaceutical research practice in Africa.     

Debating Ethics in HIV Research: Gaps between Policy and Practice in Nigeria

HIV prevention is a critical health issue in Nigeria; a country that has one of the worst HIV epidemic profiles in the world. With 270,000 new infections in 2012, Nigeria is a prime site for HIV prevention research. One effect of the HIV epidemic has been to revolutionalise ethical norms for the conduct of research: it is now considered unethical to design and implement HIV related studies without community engagement. Unfortunately, there is very little commensurate effort in building the capacity of local persons to engage actively with researchers, and there is no existing platform to facilitate dialogue between researchers and communities engaged in research in Nigeria. In an effort to address this gap, we undertook a series of three community dialogues (Phase One) and two community‐researcher interface meetings (Phase Two) in Nigeria. This paper aims to give an empirical account of the dialogue from these community engagement processes and provide a resulting critique of the implementation of research ethics practices in Nigeria. It is anticipated that the outputs will: (i) support researchers in designing community‐based research protocols; (ii) inform ethics committees of key considerations during research protocol reviews from a community perspective; and (iii) inform policy makers and research sponsors about issues of primary concern to communities with respect to HIV research.     

Ethical issues surrounding controlled human infection challenge studies in endemic low-and middle-income countries

Controlled human infection challenge studies (CHIs) involve intentionally exposing research participants to, and/or thereby infecting them with, micro-organisms. There have been increased calls for more CHIs to be conducted in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) where many relevant diseases are endemic. This article is based on a research project that identified and analyzed ethical and regulatory issues related to endemic LMIC CHIs via (a) a review of relevant literature and (b) qualitative interviews involving 45 scientists and ethicists with relevant expertise. In this article we argue that though there is an especially strong case for conducting CHIs in endemic (LMIC) settings, certain ethical issues related to the design and conduct of such studies (in such settings) nonetheless warrant particularly careful attention. We focus on ethical implications of endemic LMIC CHIs regarding (a) potential direct benefits for participants, (b) risks to participants, (c) third-party risks, (d) informed consent, (e) payment of participants, and (f) community engagement. We conclude that there is a strong ethical rationale to conduct (well-designed) CHIs in endemic LMICs, that certain ethical issues warrant particularly careful consideration, and that ethical analyses of endemic LMIC CHIs can inform current debates in research ethics more broadly.     

Prioritising African perspectives in psychiatric genomics research: Issues of translation and informed consent

Psychiatric genomics research with African populations comes with a range of practical challenges around translation of psychiatric genomics research concepts, procedures, and nosology. These challenges raise deep ethical issues particularly around legitimacy of informed consent, a core foundation of research ethics. Through a consideration of the constitutive function of language, the paper problematises like‐for‐like, designative translations which often involve the ‘indigenization’ of English terms or use of metaphors which misrepresent the risks and benefits of research. This paper argues that effective translation of psychiatric genomics research terminology in African contexts demands substantive engagement with African conceptual schemas and values. In developing attenuated forms of translational thinking, researchers may recognise the deeper motivational reasons behind participation in research, highlighting the possibility that such reasons may depart from the original meaning implied within informed consent forms. These translational issues might be ameliorated with a critical re‐examination of how researchers develop and present protocols to institutional ethics review boards.     

Understanding ethnic differences in behaviour relating to Schistosoma mansoni re-infection after mass treatment

It is now widely recognized that a decentralized approach to the control of parasitic infections in rural sub-Saharan populations allows for the design of more effective control programmes and encourages high compliance. Compliance is usually an indicator of treatment success, but cannot be used as a measure of long-term benefit since re-infection will be strongly influenced by a number of factors including the social ecology of a community. In this paper qualitative and quantitative methods are used to identify and understand the structural and behavioural constraints that may influence water contact behaviour and create inequalities with respect to Schistosoma re-infection following anti-helminth drug treatment. The research is set in a community where participant engagement has remained uniformly high throughout the course of a 10-year multidisciplinary study on treatment and re-infection, but where levels of re-infection have not been uniform and, because of variations in water contact behaviour, have varied by age, sex and ethnic background. Variations in the biomedical knowledge of schistosomiasis, socioeconomic constraints and ethnic differences in general attitudes towards life and health are identified that may account for some of these behavioural differences. The observations highlight the benefits of understanding the socio-ecology of control and research settings at several levels (both between and within ethnic groups); this will help to design more effective and universally beneficial interventions for control and help to interpret research findings.     

When they hear what we say: ethical challenges in presenting research findings to the Huntington disease community

Sharing findings with the Huntington disease (HD) community and other genetic disease communities is challenging because of the sensitivity involved in effectively communicating findings to participants. We describe our experiences of presenting multi-disciplinary research findings to the HD community, and discuss the need to: (1) balance potential benefits and harms for participants, researchers, and others; (2) demonstrate respect for participants' needs, expectations, and priorities; and (3) ensure transparency and respect for autonomy.     

Bioethics for clinicians: 10. Research ethics

Medical research involving human subjects raises complex ethical, legal and social issues. Investigators sometimes find that their obligations with respect to a research project come into conflict with their obligations to individual patients. The ethical conduct of research rests on 3 guiding principles: respect for persons, beneficience, and justice. Respect for persons underlies the duty to obtain informed consent from study participants. Beneficence demands a favourable balance between the potential benefits and harms of participation. Justice requires that vulnerable people not be exploited and that eligible candidates who may benefit from participation not be excluded without good cause. Studies must be designed in a way that ensures the validity of findings and must address questions of sufficient importance to justify the risks of participation. In any clinical trial there must be genuine uncertainty as to which treatment arm offers the most benefit, and placebo controls should not be used if effective standard therapies exist. Researchers have a responsibility to inform themselves about the ethical, legal and policy standards that govern their activities. When difficulties arise, they should consult the existing literature and seek the advice of experts in research ethics.     

Views on Researcher-Community Engagement in Autism Research in the United Kingdom: A Mixed-Methods Study

There has been a substantial increase in research activity on autism during the past decade. Research into effective ways of responding to the immediate needs of autistic people is, however, less advanced, as are efforts at translating basic science research into service provision. Involving community members in research is one potential way of reducing this gap. This study therefore investigated the views of community involvement in autism research both from the perspectives of autism researchers and of community members, including autistic adults, family members and practitioners. Results from a large-scale questionnaire study (n = 1,516) showed that researchers perceive themselves to be engaged with the autism community but that community members, most notably autistic people and their families, did not share this view. Focus groups/interviews with 72 participants further identified the potential benefits and remaining challenges to involvement in research, especially regarding the distinct perspectives of different stakeholders. Researchers were skeptical about the possibilities of dramatically increasing community engagement, while community members themselves spoke about the challenges to fully understanding and influencing the research process. We suggest that the lack of a shared approach to community engagement in UK autism research represents a key roadblock to translational endeavors.     

Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies and tissue cell culture

The discovery of prion proteins and the diseases which are associated with them still present scientists and clinicians with a number of problems. There are clearly risks with the use of living cells and materials of animal origin to produce therapeutic compounds with respect to the transmission of prion protein. However the medical benefit many of these compounds has to be weighed against this. It is clear a number of groups are continuing to unravel the highly complex relationships of prion biology and pathology and it is only when this is clearly established that the community can decide on these issues. Until this time the scientific community must rely on the best research available and provide guidance from this. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Considerations for community engagement when conducting clinical trials during infectious disease emergencies in West Africa

Community engagement in research, including public health related research, is acknowledged as an ethical imperative. While medical care and public health action take priority over research during infectious disease outbreaks, research is still required in order to learn from epidemic responses. The World Health Organisation developed a guide for community engagement during infectious disease epidemics called the Good Participatory Practice for Trials of Emerging (and Re‐emerging) Pathogens that are Likely to Cause Severe Outbreaks in the Near Future and for which Few or No Medical Counter‐Measures Exist (GPP‐EP). This paper identified priorities for community engagement for research conducted during infectious disease outbreaks drawing on discussions held with a purposive sample of bioethicists, social scientists, researchers, policy makers and laypersons who work with ethics committees in West Africa. These perspectives were considered in the light of the GPP‐EP, which adds further depth and dimension to discussions on community engagement frameworks. It concludes that there is no presumptive justification for the exclusion of communities in the design, implementation and monitoring of clinical trials conducted during an infectious disease outbreak. Engagement that facilitates collaboration rather than partnership between researchers and the community during epidemics is acceptable.     

Benefits in Cash or in Kind? A Community Consultation on Types of Benefits in Health Research on the Kenyan Coast

BackgroundProviding benefits and payments to participants in health research, either in cash or in kind, is a common but ethically controversial practice. While much literature has concentrated on appropriate levels of benefits or payments, this paper focuses on less well explored ethical issues around the nature of study benefits, drawing on views of community members living close to an international health research centre in Kenya.MethodsThe consultation, including 90 residents purposively chosen to reflect diversity, used a two-stage deliberative process. Five half-day workshops were each followed by between two and four small group discussions, within a two week period (total 16 groups). During workshops and small groups, facilitators used participatory methods to share information, and promote reflection and debate on ethical issues around types of benefits, including cash, goods, medical and community benefits. Data from workshop and field notes, and voice recordings of small group discussions, were managed using Nvivo 10 and analysed using a Framework Analysis approach.

Findings and Conclusions

The methods generated in-depth discussion with high levels of engagement. Particularly for the most-poor, under-compensation of time in research carries risks of serious harm. Cash payments may best support compensation of costs experienced; while highly valued, goods and medical benefits may be more appropriate as an ‘appreciation’ or incentive for participation. Community benefits were seen as important in supporting but not replacing individual-level benefits, and in building trust in researcher-community relations. Cash payments were seen to have higher risks of undue inducement, commercialising relationships and generating family conflicts than other benefits, particularly where payments are high. Researchers should consider and account for burdens families may experience when children are involved in research. Careful context-specific research planning and skilled and consistent communication about study benefits and payments are important, including in mitigating potential negative effects.