Adherence with reporting of ethical standards in COVID-19 human studies: a rapid review

Reporting of Ethical Considerations in Qualitative Research Utilizing Social Media Data on Public Health Care: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

The internet community has become a significant source for researchers to conduct qualitative studies analyzing users' views, attitudes, and experiences about public health. However, few studies have assessed the ethical issues in qualitative research using social media data.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to review the reportage of ethical considerations in qualitative research utilizing social media data on public health care.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of studies mining text from internet communities and published in peer-reviewed journals from 2010 to May 31, 2023. These studies, limited to the English language, were retrieved to evaluate the rates of reporting ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues. We searched 5 databases, that is, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane, and Embase. Gray literature was supplemented from Google Scholar and OpenGrey websites. Studies using qualitative methods mining text from the internet community focusing on health care topics were deemed eligible. Data extraction was performed using a standardized data extraction spreadsheet. Findings were reported using PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines.

RESULTS

After 4674 titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened, 108 studies on mining text from the internet community were included. Nearly half of the studies were published in the United States, with more studies from 2019 to 2022. Only 59.3% (64/108) of the studies sought ethical approval, 45.3% (49/108) mentioned informed consent, and only 12.9% (14/108) of the studies explicitly obtained informed consent. Approximately 86% (12/14) of the studies that reported informed consent obtained digital informed consent from participants/administrators, while 14% (2/14) did not describe the method used to obtain informed consent. Notably, 70.3% (76/108) of the studies contained users' written content or posts: 68% (52/76) contained verbatim quotes, while 32% (24/76) paraphrased the quotes to prevent traceability. However, 16% (4/24) of the studies that paraphrased the quotes did not report the paraphrasing methods. Moreover, 18.5% (20/108) of the studies used aggregated data analysis to protect users' privacy. Furthermore, the rates of reporting ethical approval were different between different countries (P=.02) and between papers that contained users' written content (both direct and paraphrased quotes) and papers that did not contain users' written content (P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review demonstrates that the reporting of ethical considerations is widely neglected in qualitative research studies using social media data; such studies should be more cautious in citing user quotes to maintain user privacy. Further, our review reveals the need for detailed information on the precautions of obtaining informed consent and paraphrasing to reduce the potential bias. A national consensus of ethical considerations such as ethical approval, informed consent, and privacy issues is needed for qualitative research of health care using social media data of internet communities.

Research integrity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives of health science researchers at an Academic Health Science Center

During the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, a complex mix of political pressure, social urgency, public panic, and scientific curiosity has significantly impacted the context of research and development. The goal of this study is to understand if and how researchers are shifting their practices and adjusting norms and beliefs regarding research ethics and integrity. We have conducted 31 interviews with Health Science Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch which were then analyzed using integrated deductive and inductive coding. We categorized participant views into four main areas: 1) limitations to the research design, 2) publication, 3) duplication of studies, and 4) research pipeline. Although certain researchers were in keeping to the status quo, more were willing to modify norms to address social need and urgency. Notably, they were more likely to opt for systemic change rather than modifications within their own research practices.

Ethical reporting of research on violence against women and children: a review of current practice and recommendations for future guidelines

Changes in research practice during the COVID-19 pandemic necessitates renewed attention to ethical protocols and reporting for data collection on sensitive topics. This review summarises the state of ethical reporting among studies collecting violence data during early stages of the pandemic. We systematically searched for journal publications from the start of the pandemic to November 2021, identifying 75 studies that collected primary data on violence against women and/or violence against children. We developed and applied a 14-item checklist of best practices to assess the transparency of ethics reporting and adherence to relevant global guidelines on violence research. Studies reported adhering to best practices on 31% of scored items. Reporting was highest for ethical clearance (87%) and informed consent/assent (84/83%) and lowest for whether measures to promote interviewer safety and support (3%), for facilitating referrals for minors and soliciting participant feedback were in place (both 0%). Violence studies employing primary data collection during COVID-19 reported on few ethical standards, obscuring stakeholder ability to enforce a 'do no harm' approach and to assess the reliability of findings. We offer recommendations and guidelines to improve future reporting and implementation of ethics within violence studies.

The ethical matrix as a method for involving people living with disease and the wider public (PPI) in near-term artificial intelligence research

INTRODUCTION

The rapid pace of research in the field of Artificial Intelligence in medicine has associated risks for near-term AI. Ethical considerations of the use of AI in medicine remain a subject of much debate. Concurrently, the Involvement of People living with disease and the Public (PPI) in research is becoming mandatory in the EU and UK. The goal of this research was to elucidate the important values for our relevant stakeholders: People with MS, Radiologists, neurologists, Registered Healthcare Practitioners and Computer Scientists concerning AI in radiology and synthesize these in an ethical matrix.

METHODS

An ethical matrix workshop co-designed with a patient expert. The workshop yielded a survey which was disseminated to the professional societies of the relevant stakeholders. Quantitative data were analysed using the Pingouin 0.53 python package. Qualitative data were examined with word frequency analysis and analysed for themes with grounded theory with a patient expert.

RESULTS

184 participants were recruited, (54, 60, 17, 12, 41 respectively). There were significant (p < 0.00001) differences in age, gender and ethnicity between groups. Key themes emerging from our results were the importance fast and accurate results, explanations over model performance and the significance of maintaining personal connections and choice. These themes were used to construct the ethical matrix.

CONCLUSION

The ethical matrix is a useful tool for PPI and stakeholder engagement with particular advantages for near-term AI in the pandemic era.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

We have produced an ethical matrix that allows for the inclusion of stakeholder opinion in medical AI research design.

Revising the legislation of Ethics Committees to ease biomedical research in humans across the world: lessons from the COVID-19 emergency

As a legislative domain that considerably influences implementation of biomedical research, the need to improve the legal rules surrounding the organization and functioning of Ethics Committees in public health, toxicology, and clinical medicine is widely recognized within and outside the European Union. Given the often-heard complaints by researchers about the complexity and length of both the application and the review process by Ethics Committees in the authorization of new studies, adjustments to their legislation appears to be warranted. Within the European Union this seems also all the timelier, given the upcoming new regulation of clinical trials to become effective in early 2022. For this process, valuable lessons can be gleaned from the COVID-19 pandemic and the changes in the functioning of Ethics Committees that were adopted to cope with the exceptional circumstances imposed by the health emergency. The pandemic experience clearly indicates that a more responsive and practical system of applications' review by the Ethics Committees can be squared with acceptable levels of transparency and reliability in ethical accountability. For this reason, countries like Italy should consider undertaking a significant revision of the public law rules that govern the review processes of Ethics Committees in light of the pandemic experience. (www.actabiomedica.it).