Stakeholders’ experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis

IF 2.1 Q2 ETHICS
T. Mtande, C. Lombard, G. Nair, S. Rennie
{"title":"Stakeholders’ experiences of ethical challenges in cluster randomized trials in a limited resource setting: a qualitative analysis","authors":"T. Mtande, C. Lombard, G. Nair, S. Rennie","doi":"10.1177/17470161231191247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.","PeriodicalId":38096,"journal":{"name":"Research Ethics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17470161231191247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Although the use of the cluster randomized trial (CRT) design to evaluate vaccines, public health interventions or health systems is increasing, the ethical issues posed by the design are not adequately addressed, especially in low- and middle-income country settings (LMICs). To help reveal ethical challenges, qualitative interviews were conducted with key stakeholders experienced in designing and conducting two selected CRTs in Malawi. The 18 interviewed stakeholders included investigators, clinicians, nurses, data management personnel and community workers who were invited to share their experiences related to implementation of CRTs. Data analysis revealed five major themes with ethical implications: (1) The moral obligation for health care providers to participate in health research and its compensation; (2) Suboptimal care services compromising the integrity of CRT; (3) Ensuring scientific validity and withholding care service; (4) Obtaining valid consent and permission for waiver of consent; and (5) Inadequate risk assessment for trial participation. Understanding key ethical issues posed by CRTs in Malawi could improve ethical review and research oversight of this particular study design.
有限资源环境下聚类随机试验中利益相关者的伦理挑战经验:定性分析
尽管越来越多地使用聚类随机试验(CRT)设计来评估疫苗、公共卫生干预措施或卫生系统,但该设计带来的伦理问题没有得到充分解决,特别是在低收入和中等收入国家环境中。为了帮助揭示伦理挑战,我们与在马拉维设计和实施两项选定的crt方面经验丰富的主要利益攸关方进行了定性访谈。受访的18名利益攸关方包括调查人员、临床医生、护士、数据管理人员和社区工作者,他们应邀分享了与实施crt相关的经验。数据分析揭示了具有伦理意义的五大主题:(1)卫生保健提供者参与卫生研究的道德义务及其补偿;(2)次优护理服务影响CRT的完整性;(3)保证科学有效性,保留护理服务;(四)取得有效的同意和放弃同意的许可;(5)参与试验的风险评估不充分。了解马拉维的crt所带来的关键伦理问题可以改善对这一特定研究设计的伦理审查和研究监督。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Research Ethics
Research Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.80%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信