Reflecting on Responsible Leadership in the Context of Higher Education

In the last decades, the notion that leadership comprises responsible leadership has gained support and the academic debate has shed some light on the antecedents, processes, and multi-level outcomes of responsible leadership. Being at the intersection of the leadership and sustainability discourses, responsible leadership has benefitted from the increasing interests that both fields of study have received. Nevertheless, the debate has left several questions around the nature and development of responsible leadership unanswered. Among these questions we reckon an understanding of "responsible" in the definition of "responsible leadership," the width of leaders' responsibility and the depth of their impact including the role of personal alongside formal leadership, and the distinction between "responsible" and "non responsible" leaders. The aim of this theoretical paper is to further the academic discussion on leadership in the context of sustainability and its integration in higher education settings. We review the literature and explore the academic debate while step-by-step building a description of responsible leadership that could form the basis for leadership programmes in higher education. Then, borrowing insights from pro-environmental psychology, we share a tripartite description of responsible leadership, which centres around identity, behaviour and responsiveness. As a final step, we share our experience in building an undergraduate programme based on this tripartite description of responsible leadership. Here, we illustrate how the leadership description can be visualised in a figure and used to develop an undergraduate Liberal Arts and Sciences curriculum centred on the UN Sustainable Development Goals

Do students value intercultural group work? The effects of perceived value in diversity on intercultural interactions

To understand under what conditions intercultural group work (IGW) leads to more intercultural interactions, a survey was conducted among local students (n = 80) and international students (n = 153) in Dutch universities. In this study, students were more inclined to engage in intercultural interactions when they perceived that working with culturally diverse others prepared them to work and live in a diverse setting. The positive association was strengthened when students perceived that diversity, in terms of nationality within their work group, was also beneficial for accomplishing their group task. The findings demonstrate the significance of students’ perceptions of IGW, including the perceived general value for personal development and intellectual benefits related to specific tasks. This implies that institutions and teachers could be made responsible for engaging with innovative educational methods to address and incorporate student diversity into curriculum

Towards an appropriate framework to facilitate responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug development programs

Abstract Evidence-based treatment for pregnant women will ultimately require research conducted in the population of pregnant women. Currently, few scholars have addressed the issue of responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. Because of additional risks associated with including pregnant women in drug research and the altered ways in which drugs are processed by the pregnant body, pregnant women cannot be treated as an ordinary subgroup in the various phases of drug development. Instead, responsible inclusion of pregnant women requires careful design and planning of research for pregnant women specifically. Knowledge about these aspects is virtually nonexistent. In this article, we present a practical framework for the responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug development. We suggest that the framework consists of using a question-based approach with five key questions in combination with three prerequisites which should be addressed when considering inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. The five questions are:A. Can we consider the drug safe (enough) for first exposure in pregnant women and fetuses? B. In which dose range (potentially depending on gestational age) can the drug be considered to remain safe in pregnant women? C. At what dose (regimen, within the range considered safe) can we expect efficacy in pregnant women? D. Can efficacy be confirmed at the target dose, either similar to the initial population or different? E. Can clinical safety be confirmed at a sufficiently acceptable level at the target dose for pregnant women and fetuses, so as to conclude a positive benefit–risk ratio? Combining questions and prerequisites leads to a scheme for appropriate timing of responsible inclusion of pregnant women in drug research. Accordingly, we explore several research design options for including pregnant women in drug trials that are feasible within the framework. Ultimately, the framework may lead to (i) earlier inclusion of pregnant women in drug development, (ii) ensuring that key prerequisites, such as proper dosing, are addressed before more substantial numbers of pregnant women are included in trials, and (iii) optimal use of safety and efficacy data from the initial (nonpregnant) population throughout the drug development process

A qualitative study on acceptable levels of risk for pregnant women in clinical research

Abstract Background There is ambiguity with regard to what counts as an acceptable level of risk in clinical research in pregnant women and there is no input from stakeholders relative to such research risks. The aim of our paper was to explore what stakeholders who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women deem an acceptable level of risk for pregnant women in clinical research. Accordingly, we used the APOSTEL VI study, a low-risk obstetrical randomised controlled trial, as a case-study. Methods We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed healthcare professionals, Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) and regulators who are actively involved in the conduct of clinical research in pregnant women, in addition to pregnant women recruited for the APOSTEL VI case-study in the Netherlands. Results Three themes characterise the way stakeholders view risks in clinical research in pregnant women in general. Additionally, one theme characterises the way healthcare professionals and pregnant women view risks with respect to the case-study specifically. First, ideas on what constitutes an acceptable level of risk in general ranged from a preference for zero risk for the foetus up to minimal risk. Second, the desirability of clinical research in pregnant women in general was questioned altogether. Third, stakeholders proposed to establish an upper limit of risk in potentially beneficial clinical research in pregnant women in order to protect the foetus and the pregnant woman from harm. Fourth and finally, the case-study illustrates that healthcare professionals’ individual perception of risk may influence recruitment. Conclusions Healthcare professionals, RECs, regulators and pregnant women are all risk adverse in practice, possibly explaining the continuing underrepresentation of pregnant women in clinical research. Determining the acceptable levels of risk on a universal level alone is insufficient, because the individual perception of risk also influences behaviour towards pregnant women in clinical research. Therefore, bioethicists and researchers might be interested in changing the perception of risk, which could be achieved by education and awareness about the actual benefits and harms of inclusion and exclusion of pregnant women

A qualitative study on stakeholders’ views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

Abstract Background Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study. Methods We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women. Results Three themes characterise stakeholders’ views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders’ interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women’s decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment. Conclusions Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women’s decisional capacities

A qualitative study on stakeholders' views on the participation of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study: a low-risk obstetrical RCT

BACKGROUND: Bioethicists argue that inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research should be more routine to increase the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses. Yet, it is unknown whether pregnant women and others directly involved are willing to be routinely included. Therefore, we first need to establish what these stakeholders think about research participation in regular pregnancy-related research. However, studies on their views are scarce. In our study, we piggy-backed on a relatively conventional RCT, the APOSTEL VI study, to identify the views of stakeholders on inclusion of pregnant women in this study. METHODS: We conducted a prospective qualitative study using 35 in-depth semi-structured interviews and one focus group. We interviewed pregnant women (n = 14) recruited for the APOSTEL VI study, in addition to healthcare professionals (n = 14), Research Ethics Committee members (RECs) (n = 5) and regulators (n = 7) involved in clinical research in pregnant women. RESULTS: Three themes characterise stakeholders' views on inclusion of pregnant women in the APOSTEL VI study. Additionally, one theme characterises stakeholders' interest in inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general. First, pregnant women participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and secondarily for altruistic motives, contrary to hypothetical studies. Second, a gatekeeping tendency hampers recruitment of pregnant women who might be eligible and willing, and questions about pregnant women's decisional capacities surface. Third, healthcare professionals sometimes use the counselling conversation to steer pregnant women in a direction. Fourth, all stakeholders are hesitant about inclusion of pregnant women in clinical research in general due to a protective sentiment. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant women are willing to participate in the APOSTEL VI study for potential individual benefit and altruistic motives. However, an underlying protective sentiment, resulting in gatekeeping and directive counselling, sometimes hampers recruitment in the APOSTEL VI study as well as in clinical research in general. While bioethicists claim that inclusion of pregnant women should be customary, our study indicates that healthcare professionals, regulators, RECs and pregnant women themselves are not necessarily interested in inclusion. Advancing the situation and increasing the evidence-base for pregnant women and foetuses may require additional measures such as investing in the recruitment and feasibility of RCTs and stimulating pregnant women's decisional capacities

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials : an integrated scientific and ethical approach

BACKGROUND: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling "scientific reasons" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion. METHODS: Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion. RESULTS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women. CONCLUSIONS: Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant women

Fair inclusion of pregnant women in clinical trials: an integrated scientific and ethical approach

Background: Since pregnant women are severely underrepresented in clinical research, many take the position that the exclusion of pregnant women from research must be justified unless there are compelling "scientific reasons" for their exclusion. However, it is questionable whether this approach renders research with pregnant women fair. This paper analyzes and evaluates when research with pregnant women can be considered as fair and what constitutes scientific reasons for exclusion. Methods: Conceptual ethical and methodological analysis and evaluation of fair inclusion. Results: Fair inclusion of pregnant women means (1) that pregnant women who are eligible are not excluded solely for being pregnant and (2) that the research interests of pregnant women are prioritized, meaning that they ought to receive substantially more attention. Fairness does not imply that pregnant women should be included in virtually every research project, as including only a few pregnant women in a population consisting only of women will not help to determine the effectiveness and safety of a treatment in pregnant women. Separate trials in pregnant women may be preferable once we assume, or know, that effects of interventions in pregnant women differ from the effects in other subpopulations, or when we assume, or know, that there are no differences. In the latter case, it may be preferable to conduct post-marketing studies or establish registries. If there is no conclusive evidence indicating either differences or equivalence of effects between pregnant and non-pregnant women, yet it seems unlikely that major differences or exact equivalence exist, the inclusion of pregnant women should be sufficient. Depending on the research question, this boils down to representativeness in terms of the proportion of pregnant and non-pregnant women, or to oversampling pregnant women. Conclusions: Fair inclusion of pregnant women in research implies that separate trials in pregnant women should be promoted. Inclusion of pregnant women has to be realized at the earliest phases of the research process. In addition to researchers and research ethics committees, scientific advisory councils, funders, drug regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, journal editors and others have a joint responsibility to further develop the evidence base for drug use in pregnant wome