Launching Democracy - 1993 and 1994 [South Africa]

The purpose of the survey was to gather data on the democratic process in South Africa on behalf of the Institute for Multiparty Democracy

Multiple forms of discrimination and internalized stigma compromise retention in HIV care among adolescents: findings from a South African cohort

Introduction Efficacious antiretroviral treatment (ART) enables people to live long and healthy lives with HIV but young people are dying from AIDS‐related causes more than ever before. Qualitative evidence suggest that various forms of HIV‐related discrimination and resulting shame act as profound barriers to young people’s engagement with HIV services. However, the impact of these risks on adolescent retention in HIV care has not been quantified. This study has two aims: (1) to examine whether and how different types of discrimination compromise retention in care among adolescents living with HIV in South Africa; and (2) to test whether internalized stigma mediates these relationships. Methods Between 2014 and 2017, adolescents living with HIV (aged 10 to 19) from 53 health facilities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, were interviewed at baseline (n = 1059) and 18‐month follow‐up (n = 979, 92.4%), with responses linked to medical records. Data were analysed through multiple regression and mediation models. Results About 37.9% of adolescents reported full retention in care over the 2‐year period, which was associated with reduced odds of viral failure (OR: 0.371; 95% CI: .224, .614). At baseline, 6.9% of adolescents reported discrimination due to their HIV status; 14.9% reported discrimination due to HIV in their families and 19.1% reported discrimination in healthcare settings. Healthcare discrimination was associated with reduced retention in care both directly (effect: −0.120; CI: −0.190, −0.049) and indirectly through heightened internalized stigma (effect: 0.329; 95% CI: 0.129, 0.531). Discrimination due to family HIV was associated with reduced retention in care both directly (effect: −0.074, CI: −0.146, −0.002) and indirectly through heightened internalized stigma (effect: 0.816, CI: 0.494, 1.140). Discrimination due to adolescent HIV was associated with reduced retention in care only indirectly, through increased internalized stigma (effect: 0.408; CI: 0.102, 0.715). Conclusions Less than half of adolescents reported 2‐year retention in HIV care. Multiple forms of discrimination and the resultant internalized stigma contributed to this problem. More intervention research is urgently needed to design and test adolescent‐centred interventions so that young people living with HIV can live long and healthy lives in the era of efficacious anti‐retroviral treatment

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 (a) whether they accord with the consent substitute model’s five conditions and (b) 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 Harmonisation’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

Ethics review as a component of institutional approval for a multicentre continuous quality improvement project: the investigator's perspective

BACKGROUND: For ethical approval of a multicentre study in Canada, investigators must apply separately to individual Research Ethics Boards (REBs). In principle, the protection of human research subjects is of utmost importance. However, in practice, the process of multicentre ethics review can be time consuming and costly, requiring duplication of effort for researchers and REBs. We used our experience with ethical review of The Canadian Perinatal Network (CPN), to gain insight into the Canadian system. METHODS: The applications forms of 16 different REBs were abstracted for a list of standardized items. The application process across sites was compared. Correspondence between the REB and the investigators was documented in order to construct a timeline to approval, identify the specific issues raised by each board, and describe how they were resolved. RESULTS: Each REB had a different application form. Most (n = 9) had a two or three step application process. Overall, it took a median of 31 days (range 2-174 days) to receive an initial response from the REB. Approval took a median of 42 days (range 4-443 days). Privacy and consent were the two major issues raised. Several additional minor or administrative issues were raised which delayed approval. CONCLUSIONS: For CPN, the Canadian REB process of ethical review proved challenging. REBs acted independently and without unified application forms or submission procedures. We call for a critical examination of the ethical, privacy and institutional review processes in Canada, to determine the best way to undertake multicentre review

How do we know that research ethics committees are really working? The neglected role of outcomes assessment in research ethics review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Countries are increasingly devoting significant resources to creating or strengthening research ethics committees, but there has been insufficient attention to assessing whether these committees are actually improving the protection of human research participants.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Research ethics committees face numerous obstacles to achieving their goal of improving research participant protection. These include the inherently amorphous nature of ethics review, the tendency of regulatory systems to encourage a focus on form over substance, financial and resource constraints, and conflicts of interest. Auditing and accreditation programs can improve the quality of ethics review by encouraging the development of standardized policies and procedures, promoting a common base of knowledge, and enhancing the status of research ethics committees within their own institutions. However, these mechanisms focus largely on questions of structure and process and are therefore incapable of answering many critical questions about ethics committees' actual impact on research practices.</p> <p>The first step in determining whether research ethics committees are achieving their intended function is to identify what prospective research participants and their communities hope to get out of the ethics review process. Answers to this question can help guide the development of effective outcomes assessment measures. It is also important to determine whether research ethics committees' guidance to investigators is actually being followed. Finally, the information developed through outcomes assessment must be disseminated to key decision-makers and incorporated into practice. This article offers concrete suggestions for achieving these goals.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Outcomes assessment of research ethics committees should address the following questions: First, does research ethics committee review improve participants' understanding of the risks and potential benefits of studies? Second, does the process affect prospective participants' decisions about whether to participate in research? Third, does it change participants' subjective experiences in studies or their attitudes about research? Fourth, does it reduce the riskiness of research? Fifth, does it result in more research responsive to the local community's self-identified needs? Sixth, is research ethics committees' guidance to researchers actually being followed?</p

PrEP as a feature in the optimal landscape of combination HIV prevention in sub-Saharan Africa

INTRODUCTION: The new WHO guidelines recommend offering pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to people who are at substantial risk of HIV infection. However, where PrEP should be prioritised, and for which population groups, remains an open question. The HIV landscape in sub-Saharan Africa features limited prevention resources, multiple options for achieving cost saving, and epidemic heterogeneity. This paper examines what role PrEP should play in optimal prevention in this complex and dynamic landscape. METHODS: We use a model that was previously developed to capture subnational HIV transmission in sub-Saharan Africa. With this model, we can consider how prevention funds could be distributed across and within countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa to enable optimal HIV prevention (that is, avert the greatest number of infections for the lowest cost). Here, we focus on PrEP to elucidate where, and to whom, it would optimally be offered in portfolios of interventions (alongside voluntary medical male circumcision, treatment as prevention, and behaviour change communication). Over a range of continental expenditure levels, we use our model to explore prevention patterns that incorporate PrEP, exclude PrEP, or implement PrEP according to a fixed incidence threshold. RESULTS: At low-to-moderate levels of total prevention expenditure, we find that the optimal intervention portfolios would include PrEP in only a few regions and primarily for female sex workers (FSW). Prioritisation of PrEP would expand with increasing total expenditure, such that the optimal prevention portfolios would offer PrEP in more subnational regions and increasingly for men who have sex with men (MSM) and the lower incidence general population. The marginal benefit of including PrEP among the available interventions increases with overall expenditure by up to 14% (relative to excluding PrEP). The minimum baseline incidence for the optimal offer of PrEP declines for all population groups as expenditure increases. We find that using a fixed incidence benchmark to guide PrEP decisions would incur considerable losses in impact (up to 7%) compared with an approach that uses PrEP more flexibly in light of prevailing budget conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that, for an optimal distribution of prevention resources, choices of whether to implement PrEP in subnational regions should depend on the scope for impact of other possible interventions, local incidence in population groups, and total resources available. If prevention funding were to become restricted in the future, it may be suboptimal to use PrEP according to a fixed incidence benchmark, and other prevention modalities may be more cost-effective. In contrast, expansions in funding could permit PrEP to be used to its full potential in epidemiologically driven prevention portfolios and thereby enable a more cost-effective HIV response across Africa

How payment for research participation can be coercive

The idea that payment for research participation can be coercive appears widespread among research ethics committee members, researchers, and regulatory bodies. Yet analysis of the concept of coercion by philosophers and bioethicists has mostly concluded that payment does not coerce, because coercion necessarily involves threats, not offers. In this article we aim to resolve this disagreement by distinguishing between two distinct but overlapping concepts of coercion. Consent- undermining coercion marks out certain actions as impermissible and certain agreements as unenforceable. By contrast, coercion as subjection indicates a way in which someone’s interests can be partially set back in virtue of being subject to another’s foreign will. While offers of payment do not normally constitute consent-undermining coercion, they do sometimes constitute coercion as subjection. We offer an analysis of coercion as subjection and propose three possible practical responses to worries about the coerciveness of payment

Ethical Issues in Measuring Biomarkers in Children’s Environmental Health

Background: Studying the impact of environmental exposures is important in children because they are more vulnerable to adverse effects on growth, development, and health. Assessing exposure in children is difficult, and measuring biomarkers is potentially useful. Research measuring biomarkers in children raises a number of ethical issues, some of which relate to children as research subjects and some of which are specific to biomarker research. Objective: As an international group with experience in pediatric research, biomarkers, and the ethics of research in children, we highlight the ethical issues of undertaking biomarker research in children in these environments. Discussion: Significant issues include undertaking research in vulnerable communities, especially in developing countries; managing community expectations; obtaining appropriate consent to conduct the research; the potential conflicts of obtaining permission from an ethics review board in an economically developed country to perform research in a community that may have different cultural values; returning research results to participants and communities when the researchers are uncertain of how to interpret the results; and the conflicting ethical obligations of maintaining participant confidentiality when information about harm or illegal activities mandate reporting to authorities. Conclusion: None of these challenges are insurmountable and all deserve discussion. Pediatric biomarker research is necessary for advancing child health

Scientific and Legal Perspectives on Science Generated for Regulatory Activities

This article originated from a conference that asked “Should scientific work conducted for purposes of advocacy before regulatory agencies or courts be judged by the same standards as science conducted for other purposes?” In the article, which focuses on the regulatory advocacy context, we argue that it can be and should be. First, we describe a set of standards and practices currently being used to judge the quality of scientific research and testing and explain how these standards and practices assist in judging the quality of research and testing regardless of why the work was conducted. These standards and practices include the federal Information Quality Act, federal Good Laboratory Practice standards, peer review, disclosure of funding sources, and transparency in research policies. The more that scientific information meets these standards and practices, the more likely it is to be of high quality, reliable, reproducible, and credible. We then explore legal issues that may be implicated in any effort to create special rules for science conducted specifically for a regulatory proceeding. Federal administrative law does not provide a basis for treating information in a given proceeding differently depending on its source or the reason for which it was generated. To the contrary, this law positively assures that interested persons have the right to offer their technical expertise toward the solution of regulatory problems. Any proposal to subject scientific information generated for the purpose of a regulatory proceeding to more demanding standards than other scientific information considered in that proceeding would clash with this law and would face significant administrative complexities. In a closely related example, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency considered but abandoned a program to implement standards aimed at “external” information