Ethical tensions in the informed consent process for randomized clinical trials in emergency obstetric and newborn care in low and middle-income countries

Factors influencing the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials: A mixed-methods systematic review

BACKGROUND

Poor representation of pregnant and lactating women and people in clinical trials has marginalised their health concerns and denied the maternal-fetal/infant dyad benefits of innovation in therapeutic research and development. This mixed-methods systematic review synthesised factors affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials, across all levels of the research ecosystem.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched 8 databases from inception to 14 February 2024 to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that described factors affecting participation of pregnant and lactating women in vaccine and therapeutic clinical trials in any setting. We used thematic synthesis to analyse the qualitative literature and assessed confidence in each qualitative review finding using the GRADE-CERQual approach. We compared quantitative data against the thematic synthesis findings to assess areas of convergence or divergence. We mapped review findings to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Model of Behaviour (COM-B) to inform future development of behaviour change strategies. We included 60 papers from 27 countries. We grouped 24 review findings under 5 overarching themes: (a) interplay between perceived risks and benefits of participation in women's decision-making; (b) engagement between women and the medical and research ecosystems; (c) gender norms and decision-making autonomy; (d) factors affecting clinical trial recruitment; and (e) upstream factors in the research ecosystem. Women's willingness to participate in trials was affected by: perceived risk of the health condition weighed against an intervention's risks and benefits, therapeutic optimism, intervention acceptability, expectations of receiving higher quality care in a trial, altruistic motivations, intimate relationship dynamics, and power and trust in medicine and research. Health workers supported women's participation in trials when they perceived clinical equipoise, had hope for novel therapeutic applications, and were convinced an intervention was safe. For research staff, developing reciprocal relationships with health workers, having access to resources for trial implementation, ensuring the trial was visible to potential participants and health workers, implementing a woman-centred approach when communicating with potential participants, and emotional orientations towards the trial were factors perceived to affect recruitment. For study investigators and ethics committees, the complexities and subjectivities in risk assessments and trial design, and limited funding of such trials contributed to their reluctance in leading and approving such trials. All included studies focused on factors affecting participation of cisgender pregnant women in clinical trials; future research should consider other pregnancy-capable populations, including transgender and nonbinary people.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights diverse factors across multiple levels and stakeholders affecting the participation of pregnant and lactating women in clinical trials. By linking identified factors to frameworks of behaviour change, we have developed theoretically informed strategies that can help optimise pregnant and lactating women's engagement, participation, and trust in such trials.

Toward Consent in Molecular HIV Surveillance?: Perspectives of Critical Stakeholders

BACKGROUND

The emergence of molecular HIV surveillance (MHS) and cluster detection and response (CDR) programs as key features of the United States (US) HIV strategy since 2018 has caused major controversies. HIV surveillance programs that re-use individuals' routinely collected clinical HIV data do not require consent on the basis that the public benefit of these programs outweighs individuals' rights to opt out. However, criticisms of MHS/CDR have questioned whether expanded uses of HIV genetic sequence data for prevention reach beyond traditional public health ethics frameworks. This study aimed to explore views on consent within MHS/CDR among critical stakeholders.

METHODS

In 2021 we interviewed 26 US HIV stakeholders who identified as being critical or concerned about the rollout of MHS/CDR. Stakeholders included participants belonging to networks of people living with HIV, other advocates, academics, and public health professionals. This analysis focused on identifying the range of positions among critical and concerned stakeholders on consent affordances, opt-outs, how to best inform people living with HIV about how data about them are used in public health programs, and related ethical issues.

RESULTS

Participants were broadly supportive of introducing some forms of consent into MHS/CDR. However, they differed on the specifics of implementing consent. While some participants did not support introducing consent affordances, all supported the idea that people living with HIV should be informed about how HIV surveillance and prevention is conducted and how individuals' data are used.

CONCLUSIONS

MHS/CDR has caused sustained controversy. Among critical stakeholders, consent is generally desirable but contested, although the right for people living with HIV to be informed was centrally supported. In an era of big data-driven public health interventions and routine uses of HIV genetic sequence data in surveillance and prevention, CDC and other agencies should revisit public health ethics frameworks and consider the possibility of consent processes.

The ethical considerations for emergency care research in low- and middle-income countries: A scoping review of the published literature

INTRODUCTION

Research studies on emergency care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) face many ethical considerations, including obtaining valid informed consent from vulnerable patients. This study aims to describe the body of literature related to the ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in low- and middle-income settings.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted to identify literature published between 2000 and 2020 related to ethical considerations associated with emergency care research in the LMIC setting. Titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate, and full texts were reviewed and extracted by the principal author.

RESULTS

In total, 1087 articles were identified and 17 articles were included. Major themes identified in the literature included risk versus benefit assessments, patient vulnerabilities, consent, community engagement, clinical roles, ancillary care provision, and regulation of research. Alternative models of consent are often used in emergency care research, including surrogate consent, community consent, and waiver of consent. Challenges and best practices with these alternative models of consent in LMICs are discussed.

DISCUSSION

Gaps remain in the literature describing the ethics of emergency care research in LMICs, including clear guidelines for protecting vulnerable patients and designing ethical consent processes. Best practices identified include community engagement for designing research studies, identifying acceptable risk profiles, and allocating benefits. Continuous and rigorous assessment of the quality of consent is also needed.

Do National and International Ethics Documents Accord With the Consent Substitute Model for Emergency Research?

In 2010 Largent, Wendler, and Emanuel proposed the "consent substitute model" for emergency research with incapacitated participants. The model provides a means to enroll participants in emergency research without consent, if five conditions are met: 1) the research addresses the patients' urgent medical needs, 2) the risk-benefit ratio is favorable, 3) there are no known conflicts with patients' values or interests, 4) cumulative net risk is minimal, and 5) consent is given as soon as possible. We review national and international ethics laws, regulations, and guidelines to determine 1) whether they accord with the consent substitute model's five conditions and 2) the level of congruence across these documents. We find that only one document meets all five conditions and that there is significant disparity among the documents, particularly between national and international ones. These differences may have stymied international collaboration in emergency research. We recommend that the two international documents used most, the International Council for Harmonization's Guideline for Good Clinical Practice and the World Medical Association's Declaration of Helsinki, are revised to include more specific provisions on emergency medical research.