What do we know about ancillary care practices in East and Southern Africa? A systematic review and meta-synthesis

Background: Despite growing calls for the provision of ancillary care to study participants during medical research, there remains a noticeable gap in ethical guidelines for medical researchers in resource-constrained settings (RCS). We reviewed recent studies to determine the extent to which ancillary care is provided in East and Southern Africa and to examine the ethical justifications researchers provide to support their views on ancillary care obligations. Methods: A systematic search for qualitative and mixed methods studies on ancillary care was conducted across MEDLINE, Embase, African Wide Information, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, and Scopus. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Department of Bioethics and H3 Africa websites and Google Scholar were further searched. Studies conducted in East and Southern Africa between 2004 and 2020, as well as those that reported on ancillary care provided to study participants were included. All studies included in this review were evaluated for methodological quality as well as bias risk. NVivo version 12 was used for thematic analysis. Results: Overall, 4,710 articles were identified by the initial search. After the data extraction and quality assessment, 24 articles were included. Key areas presented include ancillary care approaches and the themes of researcher motivation for providing ancillary care and expectations of participants in medical research. The review shows that while some international researchers do provide ancillary care to their study participants, approaches are not standardised without consistent guidelines for ethical practice for ancillary care. We found limited empirical studies in RCS that report on ancillary care, hence findings in this review are based on single studies rather than a collection of multiple studies. Conclusions: This paper emphasizes the value of establishing ethics guidelines for medical researchers in RCS who consider provision of ancillary care to their participants, and the need to account for these ethical guidelines in medical research.</ns3:p

A chronological discourse analysis of ancillary care provision in guidance documents for research conduct in the global south.

INTRODUCTION: Numerous guidelines and policies for ethical research practice have evolved over time, how this translates to global health practice in resource-constrained settings is unclear. The purpose of this paper is to describe how the concept of ancillary care has evolved over time and how it is included in the ethics guidelines and policy documents that guide the conduct of research in the global south with both an international focus and providing a specific example of Malawi, where the first author lives and works, as a case study. METHODS: Discourse analysis was conducted on 34 international ethics guidelines and policy documents. Documents were purposively selected if they contained a set of key terms that reflect the concept of ancillary care. Following a process of inductive discourse analysis, five key interrelated text phrases relating to ancillary care were extracted from the documents. The evolution of these phrases over time was explored as they represented the development of the concept of ancillary care as a component of ethical health research guidance and practice. RESULTS: We found key interrelated phrases that represent discourses regarding the evolution of ancillary care including participant protection; provide care as appropriate; supererogation; patient needs prevail over science; and ancillary care as an obligation. Arguments for the provision of ancillary care were characterised by safeguarding the safety, health rights and well-being of study participants. However, despite the evolution of discourse around ethical obligations to provide ancillary care, this is rarely made explicit within guidance documents, leaving interpretive space for differential application in practice. CONCLUSION: While there have been major changes to the ethics guidance that reflect significant evolution in the ethical conduct of research, the specific vocabulary or language used to explain the ethics of researchers' ancillary care obligations to the health needs of their research participants, lacks clarity and consistency. As a result, the concept of ancillary care continues to be under-represented in local ethical guidelines and regulations, with no clear directives for country-level research ethics committees to apply in regulating ancillary care responsibilities

'Guidance should have been there 15 years ago' research stakeholders' perspectives on ancillary care in the global south: a case study of Malawi

BACKGROUND: Medical researchers in resource-constrained settings must make difficult moral decisions about the provision of ancillary care to participants where additional healthcare needs fall outside the scope of the research and are not provided for by the local healthcare system. We examined research stakeholder perceptions and experiences of ancillary care in biomedical research projects in Malawi. METHODS: We conducted 45 qualitative in-depth interviews with key research stakeholders: researchers, health officials, research ethics committee members, research participants and grants officers from international research funding organisations. Thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the findings. FINDINGS: All stakeholders perceived the provision of ancillary care to have potential health benefits to study participants in biomedical research. However, they also had concerns, particularly related to the absence of guidance to support it. Some suggested that consideration for ancillary care provision could be possible on a case-by-case basis but that most of the support from research projects should be directed towards strengthening the public health system, emphasising public good above individual or personal benefits. Some researchers and ethics committee members raised concerns about potential tensions in terms of funding, for example balancing study demands with addressing participants' additional health needs. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the complexities and gaps in the guidance around the provision of ancillary care in Malawi and other resource-constrained settings more generally. To promote the provision of ancillary care, we recommend that national and international guidelines for research ethics include specific recommendations for resource-constrained settings and specific types of research

‘Guidance should have been there 15 years ago’ research stakeholders’ perspectives on ancillary care in the global south: a case study of Malawi

Background: Medical researchers in resource-constrained settings must make difficult moral decisions about the provision of ancillary care to participants where additional healthcare needs fall outside the scope of the research and are not provided for by the local healthcare system. We examined research stakeholder perceptions and experiences of ancillary care in biomedical research projects in Malawi. Methods: We conducted 45 qualitative in-depth interviews with key research stakeholders: researchers, health officials, research ethics committee members, research participants and grants officers from international research funding organisations. Thematic analysis was used to analyse and interpret the findings. Findings: All stakeholders perceived the provision of ancillary care to have potential health benefits to study participants in biomedical research. However, they also had concerns, particularly related to the absence of guidance to support it. Some suggested that consideration for ancillary care provision could be possible on a case-by-case basis but that most of the support from research projects should be directed towards strengthening the public health system, emphasising public good above individual or personal benefits. Some researchers and ethics committee members raised concerns about potential tensions in terms of funding, for example balancing study demands with addressing participants’ additional health needs. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the complexities and gaps in the guidance around the provision of ancillary care in Malawi and other resource-constrained settings more generally. To promote the provision of ancillary care, we recommend that national and international guidelines for research ethics include specific recommendations for resource-constrained settings and specific types of research

Stakeholder views on the acceptability of human infection studies in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Human infection studies (HIS) are valuable in vaccine development. Deliberate infection, however, creates challenging questions, particularly in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) where HIS are new and ethical challenges may be heightened. Consultation with stakeholders is needed to support contextually appropriate and acceptable study design. We examined stakeholder perceptions about the acceptability and ethics of HIS in Malawi, to inform decisions about planned pneumococcal challenge research and wider understanding of HIS ethics in LMICs. METHODS: We conducted 6 deliberative focus groups and 15 follow-up interviews with research staff, medical students, and community representatives from rural and urban Blantyre. We also conducted 5 key informant interviews with clinicians, ethics committee members, and district health government officials. RESULTS: Stakeholders perceived HIS research to have potential population health benefits, but they also had concerns, particularly related to the safety of volunteers and negative community reactions. Acceptability depended on a range of conditions related to procedures for voluntary and informed consent, inclusion criteria, medical care or support, compensation, regulation, and robust community engagement. These conditions largely mirror those in existing guidelines for HIS and biomedical research in LMICs. Stakeholder perceptions pointed to potential tensions, for example, balancing equity, safety, and relevance in inclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest HIS research could be acceptable in Malawi, provided certain conditions are in place. Ongoing assessment of participant experiences and stakeholder perceptions will be required to strengthen HIS research during development and roll-out

“At first, I was very afraid”—a qualitative description of participants’ views and experiences in the first Human Infection Study in Malawi [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen in a controlled environment to understand infection and support the development of effective vaccines or treatments. HIS research is expanding to many low and middle-income settings to accelerate vaccine development. Given the implementation of the first HIS research to establish the experimental human pneumococcal carriage model’s feasibility, we sought to understand the participant’s opinions and experiences. Methods: We used a qualitative, descriptive approach to understand participants perceptions and experiences on HIS participation. Sixteen healthy adult participants were invited to participate in in-depth exit interviews to discuss their experiences, motivations and concerns. Results: Our findings showed that the likelihood of participation in HIS research rests on three essential conditions: motivation to participate, compensation and advocacy. The motivation and decision to participate was based on reasons including altruism, patriotism, monetary and material incentives, and while compensation was deemed appropriate, concerns about unanticipated research-related risks were raised. Participant advocate groups were recommended for increasing awareness and educating others in the broader community about HIS research. Conclusions: Participants’ experiences of HIS in Malawi provide the basis of what can be acceptable in HIS research in lower-income countries and areas where study procedures could be adjusted