Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, WHO Collaborating Centre for Bioethics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Cape Town, South Africa.
Division of Physiotherapy, Department of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Cape Town, F45 Old Main Building, Groote Schuur Hospital, Anzio Road, Observatory, Cape Town, 7725, South Africa.
BMC Med Ethics. 2023 Feb 15;24(1):11. doi: 10.1186/s12910-023-00888-y.
The COVID-19 pandemic presents significant challenges to research ethics committees (RECs) in balancing urgency of review of COVID-19 research with careful consideration of risks and benefits. In the African context, RECs are further challenged by historical mistrust of research and potential impacts on COVID-19 related research participation, as well as the need to facilitate equitable access to effective treatments or vaccines for COVID-19. In South Africa, an absent National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) also left RECs without national guidance for a significant duration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study that explored the perspectives and experiences of RECs regarding the ethical challenges of COVID-19 research in South Africa.
We conducted in-depth interviews with 21 REC chairpersons or members from seven RECs at large academic health institutions across South Africa that were actively involved in the review of COVID-19 related research from January to April 2021. In-depth interviews were conducted remotely via Zoom. Interviews (60-125 min) were conducted in English using an in-depth interview guide, until data saturation was achieved. Audio-recordings were transcribed verbatim and field notes were converted into data documents. Line-by-line coding of transcripts was performed, and data were organised into themes and sub-themes. An inductive approach to thematic analysis was used to analyse data.
Five main themes were identified, namely: rapidly evolving research ethics landscape, extreme vulnerability of research participants, unique challenges to informed consent, challenges to community engagement during COVID-19, and overlapping research ethics and public health equity issues. Sub-themes were identified for each main theme.
Numerous, significant ethical complexities and challenges were identified by South African REC members in the review of COVID-19 related research. While RECs are resilient and adaptable, reviewer and REC member fatigue were major concerns. The numerous ethical issues identified also highlight the need for research ethics teaching and training, especially in informed consent, as well as the urgent requirement for the development of national guidelines for research ethics during public health emergencies. Further, comparative analysis between different countries is needed to develop the discourse around African RECs and COVID-19 research ethics issues.
新冠疫情对研究伦理委员会(RECs)提出了重大挑战,它们需要在平衡 COVID-19 研究审查的紧迫性与仔细考虑风险和收益之间取得平衡。在非洲背景下,RECs 还面临着对研究的历史不信任以及对 COVID-19 相关研究参与的潜在影响的挑战,同时还需要促进公平获得 COVID-19 的有效治疗方法或疫苗。在南非,国家卫生研究伦理委员会(NHREC)的缺失也使得 RECs 在 COVID-19 疫情期间的相当长时间内缺乏国家指导。我们进行了一项定性描述性研究,探讨了 RECs 对南非 COVID-19 研究的伦理挑战的观点和经验。
我们对来自南非 7 个大型学术医疗机构的 21 名 REC 主席或成员进行了深入访谈,这些 REC 成员从 2021 年 1 月至 4 月积极参与了 COVID-19 相关研究的审查。深入访谈通过 Zoom 远程进行。访谈(60-125 分钟)使用深入访谈指南以英语进行,直到达到数据饱和。音频记录逐字转录,并将现场笔记转换为数据文件。对转录本进行逐行编码,并将数据组织成主题和子主题。采用归纳式主题分析方法对数据进行分析。
确定了五个主要主题,分别是:研究伦理景观的迅速演变、研究参与者的极度脆弱性、知情同意的独特挑战、COVID-19 期间社区参与的挑战以及重叠的研究伦理和公共卫生公平问题。每个主要主题都确定了子主题。
南非 REC 成员在审查 COVID-19 相关研究时发现了许多重大、显著的伦理复杂性和挑战。虽然 RECs 具有弹性和适应性,但审查员和 REC 成员的疲劳是主要关注点。确定的众多伦理问题也突显了研究伦理教学和培训的必要性,特别是在知情同意方面,以及在公共卫生紧急情况下制定研究伦理国家指南的迫切需要。此外,需要对不同国家进行比较分析,以制定有关非洲 REC 和 COVID-19 研究伦理问题的讨论。