1
|
Chi PC, Owino EA, Jao I, Bejon P, Kapulu M, Marsh V, Kamuya D. Ethical considerations around volunteer payments in a malaria human infection study in Kenya: an embedded empirical ethics study. BMC Med Ethics 2022; 23:46. [PMID: 35443642 PMCID: PMC9019790 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-022-00783-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/16/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Human Infection Studies (HIS) have emerged as an important research approach with the potential to fast track the global development of vaccines and treatments for infectious diseases, including in low resource settings. Given the high level of burdens involved in many HIS, particularly prolonged residency and biological sampling requirements, it can be challenging to identify levels of study payments that provide adequate compensation but avoid 'undue' levels of inducement to participate. Through this embedded ethics study, involving 97 healthy volunteers and other research stakeholders in a malaria HIS programme in Kenya, and using in-depth interviews, focus group discussions and observations during and after a malaria HIS, we give a grounded account of ethical issues emerging in relation to study payments in this setting. While careful community, national, international scientific and ethics review processes meant that risks of serious harm were highly unlikely, the levels of motivation to join HIS seen could raise concerns about study payments being too high. Particular value was placed on the reliability, rather than level, of study payment in this setting, where subsistence livelihoods are common. Study volunteers were generally clear about the study aims at the point of recruitment, and this knowledge was retained over a year later, although most reported experiencing more burdens than anticipated at enrolment. Strict study screening procedures, regular clinical and laboratory monitoring of volunteers, with prompt treatment with antimalarial at predetermined endpoints suggested that the risks of serious harm were highly unlikely. Ethical concerns emerged in relation to volunteers' attempts to conceal symptoms, hoping to prolong residency periods and increase study payments; and volunteers making decisions that compromised important family relationships and personal values. Our findings support an interpretation that, although study volunteers were keen to join the study to access cash payments, they also paid attention to other features of the study and the general clinical research landscape, including levels of risk associated with study participation. Overall, our analysis shows that the ethical concerns emerging from the study payments can be addressed through practical measures, hinged on reducing burdens and strengthening communication, raising important issues for research policy and planning.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Primus Che Chi
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya.
| | - Esther Awuor Owino
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
| | - Irene Jao
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
| | - Philip Bejon
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Melissa Kapulu
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Vicki Marsh
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Dorcas Kamuya
- Centre for Geographic Medicine Research (Coast), Kenya Medical Research Institute-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya
- Nuffield Department of Medicine, Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Couderc-Pétry M, Eléfant E, Wasunna M, Mwinga A, Kshirsagar NA, Strub-Wourgaft N. Inclusion of women susceptible to and becoming pregnant in preregistration clinical trials in low- and middle-income countries: A proposal for neglected tropical diseases. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 2020; 14:e0008140. [PMID: 32525876 PMCID: PMC7289336 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0008140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
| | - Elisabeth Eléfant
- Reference Center on Teratogenic Agents (CRAT), Armand-Trousseau Hospital, Paris, France
| | | | - Alwyn Mwinga
- Zambia AIDS Related Tuberculosis Project (Zambart), Lusaka, Zambia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schonfeld TL, Brown JS, Amoura NJ, Gordon BG. Strength through Structure: Defending a Structured Approach to Contraceptive Mandates in Clinical Research. Ethics Hum Res 2019; 41:33-35. [PMID: 31108572 DOI: 10.1002/eahr.500018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2022]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joseph S Brown
- Professor of psychology at the University of Nebraska Omaha
| | - N Jean Amoura
- Associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of Nebraska Medical Center
| | - Bruce G Gordon
- Assistant vice chancellor for regulatory affairs at the University of Nebraska Medical Center
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Sullivan KA, Little MO, Rosenberg NE, Zimba C, Jaffe E, Gilbert S, Coleman JS, Hoffman I, Mtande T, Anderson J, Gross MS, Rahangdale L, Faden R, Lyerly AD. Women's views about contraception requirements for biomedical research participation. PLoS One 2019; 14:e0216332. [PMID: 31067273 PMCID: PMC6505940 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216332] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 04/18/2019] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
The scientific and ethical importance of including women of reproductive age in biomedical research is widely acknowledged. Concerns about preventing fetal exposure to research interventions have motivated requirements for contraception among reproductive aged women in biomedical studies-often irrespective of risks and benefits or a woman's actual potential for pregnancy, raising important questions about when such requirements are appropriate. The perspectives of women themselves on these issues are largely unexplored. We conducted 140 interviews, 70 in the U.S. and 70 in Malawi, with women either living with or at-risk for HIV, exploring their views about the practice of requiring contraception in clinical trials. A majority of women interviewed from both countries indicated overall support for the practice, with seven themes characterizing advantages and disadvantages raised: reproductive control, health effects, prevention of fetal harm, burden on women, deferral to authority, autonomy regarding enrollment and birth control method, and relationship concerns. While women in the US frequently raised prevention of fetal harm as a key advantage, many other positives noted by women in both countries were related to contraception use in general, not specific to a trial context. With regard to disadvantages, U.S. women tended to focus on biomedical risks such as side effects and impact on fertility, whereas Malawian women focused on the social risks of contraception requirements, including violations of trust in marital relations and suspicions of potential infidelity. Given the potential benefits and burdens highlighted, contraception in research should be sensitive to actual fetal risk assessments; directed where justified at optimizing effective pregnancy prevention; responsive to women's reproductive preferences; and made available as an ancillary benefit even where risk thresholds do not justify requirement-in order to facilitate trials that are both ethical and robustly oriented around the interests and lives of women who will participate in them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kristen A. Sullivan
- Center for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Margaret Olivia Little
- Kennedy Institute for Ethics, Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., United States of America
| | - Nora E. Rosenberg
- Department of Health Behavior, University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | | | - Elana Jaffe
- Center for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Sappho Gilbert
- Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Jenell S. Coleman
- Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Irving Hoffman
- Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | | | - Jean Anderson
- Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Marielle S. Gross
- Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Lisa Rahangdale
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| | - Ruth Faden
- Berman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Anne Drapkin Lyerly
- Center for Bioethics and Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schonfeld T. The perils of protection: vulnerability and women in clinical research. THEORETICAL MEDICINE AND BIOETHICS 2013; 34:189-206. [PMID: 23686729 DOI: 10.1007/s11017-013-9258-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023]
Abstract
Subpart B of 45 Code of Federal Regulations Part 46 (CFR) identifies the criteria according to which research involving pregnant women, human fetuses, and neonates can be conducted ethically in the United States. As such, pregnant women and fetuses fall into a category requiring "additional protections," often referred to as "vulnerable populations." The CFR does not define vulnerability, but merely gives examples of vulnerable groups by pointing to different categories of potential research subjects needing additional protections. In this paper, I assess critically the role of this categorization of pregnant women involved in research as "vulnerable," both as separate entities and in combination with the fetuses they carry. In particular, I do three things: (1) demonstrate that pregnant women qua pregnancy are either not "vulnerable" according to any meaningful definition of that term or that such vulnerability is irrelevant to her status as a research participant; (2) argue that while a fetus may be vulnerable in terms of dependency, this categorization does not equate to the vulnerability of the pregnant woman; and (3) suggest that any vulnerability that appends to women is precisely the result of federal regulations and dubious public perceptions about pregnant women. I conclude by demonstrating how this erroneous characterization of pregnant women as "vulnerable" and its associated protections have not only impeded vital research for pregnant women and their fetuses, but have also negatively affected the inclusion of all women in clinical research.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Toby Schonfeld
- Center for Ethics, Emory University, 1531 Dickey Drive, 1st Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA.
| |
Collapse
|