a potential solution to some of the challenges of modern biomedical research

Background Innovations in technology have contributed to rapid changes in the way that modern biomedical research is carried out. Researchers are increasingly required to endorse adaptive and flexible approaches to accommodate these innovations and comply with ethical, legal and regulatory requirements. This paper explores how Dynamic Consent may provide solutions to address challenges encountered when researchers invite individuals to participate in research and follow them up over time in a continuously changing environment. Methods An interdisciplinary workshop jointly organised by the University of Oxford and the COST Action CHIP ME gathered clinicians, researchers, ethicists, lawyers, research participants and patient representatives to discuss experiences of using Dynamic Consent, and how such use may facilitate the conduct of specific research tasks. The data collected during the workshop were analysed using a content analysis approach. Results Dynamic Consent can provide practical, sustainable and future-proof solutions to challenges related to participant recruitment, the attainment of informed consent, participant retention and consent management, and may bring economic efficiencies. Conclusions Dynamic Consent offers opportunities for ongoing communication between researchers and research participants that can positively impact research. Dynamic Consent supports inter-sector, cross- border approaches and large scale data-sharing. Whilst it is relatively easy to set up and maintain, its implementation will require that researchers re- consider their relationship with research participants and adopt new procedures

Trial Forge Guidance 1 : what is a Study Within A Trial (SWAT)?

Randomised trials are a central component of all evidence-informed health care systems and the evidence coming from them helps to support health care users, health professionals and others to make more informed decisions about treatment. The evidence available to trialists to support decisions on design, conduct and reporting of randomised trials is, however, sparse. Trial Forge is an initiative that aims to increase the evidence base for trial decision-making and in doing so, to improve trial efficiency.One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. This guidance document provides a brief definition of SWATs, an explanation of why they are important and some practical 'top tips' that come from existing experience of doing SWATs. We hope the guidance will be useful to trialists, methodologists, funders, approvals agencies and others in making clear what a SWAT is, as well as what is involved in doing one

Trial Forge Guidance 2: how to decide if a further Study Within A Trial (SWAT) is needed

The evidence base available to trialists to support trial process decisions—e.g. how best to recruit and retain participants, how to collect data or how to share the results with participants—is thin. One way to fill gaps in evidence is to run Studies Within A Trial, or SWATs. These are self-contained research studies embedded within a host trial that aim to evaluate or explore alternative ways of delivering or organising a particular trial process. SWATs are increasingly being supported by funders and considered by trialists, especially in the UK and Ireland. At some point, increasing SWAT evidence will lead funders and trialists to ask: given the current body of evidence for a SWAT, do we need a further evaluation in another host trial? A framework for answering such a question is needed to avoid SWATs themselves contributing to research waste. This paper presents criteria on when enough evidence is available for SWATs that use randomised allocation to compare different interventions

The ethics of ‘Trials within Cohorts’ (TwiCs): 2nd international symposium - London, UK. 7-8 November 2016

On 7-8 th November 2016, 60 people with an interest in the ‘ Trials within Cohorts ’ (TwiCs) approach for randomised controlled trial design met in London. The purpose of this 2 nd TwiCs international symposium was to share perspectives and experiences on ethical aspects of the TwiCs design, discuss how TwiCs relate to the current ethical frame- work, provide a forum in which to discuss and debate ethical issues and identify future directions for conceptual and empirical research. The symposium was supported by the Wellcome Trust and the NIHR CLAHRC Yorkshire and Humber and organised by members of the TwiCs network led by Clare Relton and attended by people from the UK, the Netherlands, Norway, Canada and USA. The two-day sympo- sium enabled an international group to meet and share experiences of the TwiCs design (also known as the ‘ cohort multiple RCT design ’ ), and to discuss plans for future research. Over the two days, invited plenary talks were interspersed by discussions, posters and mini pre- sentations from bioethicists, triallists and health research regulators. Key findings of the symposium were: (1) It is possible to make a compelling case to ethics committees that TwiCs designs are ap- propriate and ethical; (2) The importance of wider considerations around the ethics of inefficient trial designs; and (3) some questions about the ethical requirements for content and timing of informed consent for a study using the TwiCs design need to be decided on a case-by-case basis

Jean Batten and the \u27Accident of Sex\u27

Through the critical analysis of visual and verbal texts, this essay offers a sighting of New Zealand aviator Jean Batten—one of the greatest women solo flyers of the twentieth century to ‘disappear’. Unlike US flyer Amelia Earhart whose disappearance some miles off Howland Island in the South Pacific prompted endless search and research, Jean Batten’s disappearance from stage and page of flight history engendered no such interest until the late 1980s when a documentary film (1988) and the first book‐length biography (1990) were published by Ian Mackersey. Although important contributions to understanding Jean Batten’s place in aviation history of the twentieth century, Mackersey’s construction of Batten’s life relies heavily upon a psychological interpretation of character and action that is largely removed from and uninformed by gendered history. Hence, an important aim of this essay is to offer an analysis of the impact ‘the accident of sex’ (a phrase coined by Earhart) and the performance of gender had and continues to have upon ‘the life’ of Jean Batten

Jean Batten and the \u27Accident of Sex\u27

Through the critical analysis of visual and verbal texts, this essay offers a sighting of New Zealand aviator Jean Batten—one of the greatest women solo flyers of the twentieth century to ‘disappear’. Unlike US flyer Amelia Earhart whose disappearance some miles off Howland Island in the South Pacific prompted endless search and research, Jean Batten’s disappearance from stage and page of flight history engendered no such interest until the late 1980s when a documentary film (1988) and the first book‐length biography (1990) were published by Ian Mackersey. Although important contributions to understanding Jean Batten’s place in aviation history of the twentieth century, Mackersey’s construction of Batten’s life relies heavily upon a psychological interpretation of character and action that is largely removed from and uninformed by gendered history. Hence, an important aim of this essay is to offer an analysis of the impact ‘the accident of sex’ (a phrase coined by Earhart) and the performance of gender had and continues to have upon ‘the life’ of Jean Batten

Evidence from UK Research Ethics Committee members on what makes a good research ethics review, and what can be improved.

The rapid development of vaccines and other innovative medical technologies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic required streamlined and efficient ethics and governance processes. In the UK the Health Research Authority (HRA) oversees and coordinates a number of the relevant research governance processes including the independent ethics review of research projects. The HRA was instrumental in facilitating the rapid review and approval of COVID-19 projects, and following the end of the pandemic, have been keen to integrate new ways of working into the UK Health Departments' Research Ethics Service. In January 2022 the HRA commissioned a public consultation that identified strong public support for alternative ethics review processes. Here we report feedback from 151 current research ethics committee members conducted at three annual training events, where we asked members to critically reflect on their ethics review activities, and to share new ideas or ways of working. The results showed a high regard for good quality discussion among members with diverse experience. Good chairing, organisation, feedback and the opportunity for reflection on ways of working were considered key. Areas for improvement included the consistency of information provided to committees by researchers, and better structuring of discussions by allowing signposting of the key issues that ethics committee members might need to consider