Ethical dilemmas in malaria vector research in Africa: Making the difficult choice between mosquito, science and humans

Malaria vector studies are a very important aspect of malaria research as they assist researchers to learn more about the malaria vector. Research programmes in various African countries include studies that assess various methods of preventing malaria transmission including controlling the malaria vector. Various institutions have also established mosquito colonies that are maintained by staff from the institutions. Malaria vector research presents several dilemmas relating to the various ways in which humans are used in the malaria vector research enterprise. A review of the past and present practices reveals much about the prevailing attitudes and assumptions with regard to the ethical conduct of research involving humans. The focus on the science of malaria vector research has led some researchers in African institutions to engage in questionable practices which reveal the ethical tensions inherent in the choice between science and the principles of justice, nonmaleficence and respect for individuals. The analysis of past and present choices in malaria vector research has relevance to broader questions of human dignity and are in line with the current emphasis on ethical research worldwide

Will developing countries benefit from their participation in genetics research?

There is an increase in the amount of genetics research being conducted in both developed and limited resource countries. Most of this research is sponsored by developed countries. There are concerns in limited resource countries on how the benefits from this research are currently being shared or will be shared in the future. There is need for caution, to ensure that populations from limited resource countries are not exploited by being used as subjects in genetics research which is meant to benefit populations from developed countries. This paper addresses the issue of fairness in benefits sharing and argues for justice in the sharing of both burdens and benefits of genetics research. The paper responds to some of the issues and arguments in recent literature on the meaning and limits of the concept of benefit sharing in human genetics research.Malawi Medical Journal Vol. 20 (2) 2008: pp. 67-6

What Does “Good” Community and Public Engagement Look Like? Developing Relationships With Community Members in Global Health Research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does “good” CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what “good” CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what “good” CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community

What does "good" community and public engagement look like? Developing relationships with community members in global health research

Community and public engagement (CPE) is increasingly becoming a key component in global health research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is one of the leading funders in the UK of global health research and requires a robust CPE element in the research it funds, along with CPE monitoring and evaluation. But what does "good" CPE look like? And what factors facilitate or inhibit good CPE? Addressing these questions would help ensure clarity of expectations of award holders, and inform effective monitoring frameworks and the development of guidance. The work reported upon here builds on existing guidance and is a first step in trying to identify the key components of what "good" CPE looks like, which can be used for all approaches to global health research and in a range of different settings and contexts. This article draws on data collected as part of an evaluation of CPE by 53 NIHR-funded award holders to provide insights on CPE practice in global health research. This data was then debated, developed and refined by a group of researchers, CPE specialists and public contributors to explore what "good" CPE looks like, and the barriers and facilitators to good CPE. A key finding was the importance, for some research, of investing in and developing long term relationships with communities, perhaps beyond the life cycle of a project; this was regarded as crucial to the development of trust, addressing power differentials and ensuring the legacy of the research was of benefit to the community. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2022 Hickey, Porter, Tembo, Rennard, Tholanah, Beresford, Chandler, Chimbari, Coldham, Dikomitis, Dziro, Ekiikina, Khattak, Montenegro, Mumba, Musesengwa, Nelson, Nhunzvi, Ramirez and Staniszewska.

The impact of working alliance in managing youth anxiety and depression: a scoping review

A working alliance (WA) is a multidimensional construct signifying a collaborative relationship between a client and a therapist. Systematic reviews of therapies to treat depression and anxiety, almost exclusively in adults, show WA is essential across psychotherapies. However, there are critical gaps in our understanding of the importance of WA in low-intensity therapies for young people with depression and anxiety. Here, we describe an initiative to explore the effect of WA on anxiety and depression outcomes in youth aged 14–24 years through a scoping review and stakeholders’ consultations (N = 32). We analysed 27 studies; most were done in high-income countries and evaluated one-on-one in-person therapies (18/27). The review shows that optimal WA is associated with improvements in: relationships, self-esteem, positive coping strategies, optimism, treatment adherence, and emotional regulation. Young people with lived experience expressed that: a favourable therapy environment, regular meetings, collaborative goal setting and confidentiality were vital in forming and maintaining a functional WA. For a clinician, setting boundaries, maintaining confidentiality, excellent communication skills, being non-judgmental, and empathy were considered essential for facilitating a functional WA. Overall, a functional WA was recognised as an active ingredient in psychotherapies targeting anxiety and depression in young people aged 14–24. Although more research is needed to understand WA’s influence in managing anxiety and depression in young people, we recommend routine evaluation of WA. Furthermore, there is an urgent need to identify strategies that promote WA in psychotherapies to optimise the treatment of anxiety and depression in young people

Debate: promoting capabilities for young people's agency in the COVID‐19 outbreak

The COVID‐19 pandemic is having a pervasive effect on young people's mental health and well‐being, giving rise to feelings of deep uncertainty and lack of control. Inspired by Amartya Sen's capabilities framework, we argue that building capacity and creating opportunities for community and civic engagement during this time will help young people gain agency and well‐being. We highlight two key areas for participatory engagement: coproduction of research, and peer‐led interventions. Providing capabilities for young people's agency not only builds personal resilience, but also strengthens the quality of our research, interventions and overall response to the global health crisis

The Africa Ethics Working Group (AEWG): a model of collaboration for psychiatric genomic research in Africa

The Africa Ethics Working Group (AEWG) is a South-South-North collaboration of bioethics and mental health researchers from sub-Saharan Africa, working to tackle emerging ethical challenges in global mental health research. Initially formed to provide ethical guidance for a neuro-psychiatric genomics research project, AEWG has evolved to address cross cutting ethical issues in mental health research aimed at addressing equity in North-South collaborations. Global South refers to economically developing countries (sub-Saharan Africa in this context) and Global North to economically developed countries (primarily Europe, UK and North America). In this letter we discuss lessons that as a group we have learnt over the last three years; lessons that similar collaborations could draw on. With increasing expertise from Global South as an outcome of several capacity strengthening initiatives, it is expected that the nature of scientific collaborations will shift to a truly equitable partnership. The AEWG provides a model to rethink contributions that each partner could make in these collaborations