Introducing an Ethics Framework for health priority-setting in South Africa on the path to universal health coverage

Background. South Africa (SA) has embarked on a process to implement universal health coverage (UHC) funded by National Health Insurance (NHI). The 2019 NHI Bill proposes creation of a health technology assessment (HTA) body to inform decisions about which interventions NHI funds will cover under UHC. In practice, HTA often relies mainly on economic evaluations of cost-effectiveness and budget impact, with less attention to the systematic, specific consideration of important social, organisational and ethical impacts of the health technology in question. In this context, the South African Values and Ethics for Universal Health Coverage (SAVE-UHC) research project recognised an opportunity to help shape the health priority-setting process by providing a way to take account of multiple, ethically relevant considerations that reflect SA values. The SAVE-UHC Research Team developed and tested an SA-specific Ethics Framework for HTA assessment and analysis.Objectives. To develop and test an Ethics Framework for use in the SA context for health priority-setting.Methods. The Framework was developed iteratively by the authors and a multidisciplinary panel (18 participants) over a period of 18 months, using the principles outlined in the 2015 NHI White Paper as a starting point. The provisional Ethics Framework was then tested with multi-stakeholder simulated appraisal committees (SACs) in three provinces. The membership of each SAC roughly reflected the composition of a potential SA HTA committee. The deliberations and dedicated focus group discussions after each SAC meeting were recorded, analysed and used to refine the Framework, which was presented to the Working Group for review, comment and final approval.Results. This article describes the 12 domains of the Framework. The first four (Burden of the Health Condition, Expected Health Benefits and Harms, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, and Budget Impact) are commonly used in HTA assessments, and a further eight cover the other ethical domains. These are Equity, Respect and Dignity, Impacts on Personal Financial Situation, Forming and Maintaining Important Personal Relationships, Ease of Suffering, Impact on Safety and Security, Solidarity and Social Cohesion, and Systems Factors and Constraints. In each domain are questions and prompts to enable use of the Framework by both analysts and assessors. Issues that arose, such as weighting of the domains and the availability of SA evidence, were discussed by the SACs.Conclusions. The Ethics Framework is intended for use in priority-setting within an HTA process. The Framework was well accepted by a diverse group of stakeholders. The final version will be a useful tool not only for HTA and other priority-setting processes in SA, but also for future efforts to create HTA methods in SA and elsewhere

What should South African HIV vaccine trials do about social harms?

Phase I and II HIV vaccine trials are currently underway in South Africa. Sites are being prepared for Phase III vaccine trials. Participants in these trials risk exposure to 'social harms' that may impact on participant enrolment and retention and threaten their welfare. Potential social harms should be prevented, minimised and/or addressed. This paper examines the literature on potential social harms in HIV vaccine trials. It outlines the type and severity and frequency of potential social harms and ways these have been monitored in settings in the developed world and Thailand. We argue that many of these social harms are likely to manifest in South African trials, however, it is also likely social harms may manifest differently in our setting, such as domestic violence. Therefore careful formative research is required to identify what constitutes a social harm in our setting. Measures should be carefully tailored to record such events and methods established to prevent or address these. © 2007 Taylor & Francis.Articl

Women, science, ethics and HIV vaccine testing in Africa

Paper presented at the WHO-UNAIDS consultation, Geneva, Switzerland, 26-28 Augus

Exploring the ethics of global health research priority-setting

Background Thus far, little work in bioethics has specifically focused on global health research priority-setting. Yet features of global health research priority-setting raise ethical considerations and concerns related to health justice. For example, such processes are often exclusively disease-driven, meaning they rely heavily on burden of disease considerations. They, therefore, tend to undervalue non-biomedical research topics, which have been identified as essential to helping reduce health disparities. In recognition of these ethical concerns and the limited scholarship and dialogue addressing them, we convened an international workshop in September 2015. The workshop aimed to initiate discussion on the appropriate relationship between global and national levels of health research priority-setting and to begin exploring what might be ethically required for priority-setting at each of those levels. Main text This paper comprises our reflections following the workshop. Its main objective is to launch a research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting. We identify three domains of global health research priority-setting—scope, underlying values and substantive requirements, and procedural considerations. For each domain, specific research questions are highlighted and why they need to be explored is explained. Some preliminary thoughts and normative arguments as to how the research questions might be answered are also offered. For example, we provide initial ideas about the appropriate relationship between different priority-setting levels and what values and substantive considerations should guide or underpin global health research priority-setting as a matter of justice. Conclusion We anticipate that framing a new research agenda for the ethics of global health research priority-setting will spur ethicists, researchers, and policymakers to refocus their efforts on developing more rigorous and ethically sound approaches to priority-setting

Identification of prescription opioid misuse and abuse behaviors and risk factors in chronic pain patients using the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ)

To identify patient risk factors associated with prescription opioid misuse and abuse as well as groupings of misuse and abuse behaviors as measured by the Prescription Opioid Misuse and Abuse Questionnaire (POMAQ). Adults with chronic pain requiring long-term treatment with opioids completed the POMAQ and other study questionnaires. Latent class analysis (LCA) was used to examine underlying subgroups exhibiting particular risk profiles. Patient demographic and clinical characteristics were examined as covariates and the concordance between the identified latent classes at-risk classifications and the POMAQ clinical scoring algorithm was assessed. Analysis of data from 809 patients revealed 4 classes: “chronic pain, low risk” (n = 473, low to no prevalence of POMAQ behaviors), “chronic pain, comorbid condition” (n = 152, high prevalence of anti-anxiety, sleeping pill, and antihistamine use), “at risk” (n = 154, taking more opioids than prescribed and drinking alcohol with opioids more frequently than other groups), and “high risk” (n = 30, highest prevalence of each behavior). The “high risk” group was associated with being younger, less educated, and unemployed compared to other groups. When examining the LCA classes by groups defined by the original POMAQ clinical scoring algorithm, the “high risk” class had the highest proportion of participants identified with abuse behaviors (46.7%), compared to just 4.7% in the “chronic pain, low risk” group. Findings suggest there are four distinct subgroups of patients defined by chronic opioid misuse and abuse behaviors and support the use of the POMAQ to identify risk factors associated with prescription opioid misuse and abuse.</p