Introduction
Background
Are there ethical considerations which apply particularly to implementation research?
Domain | Clinical research | Implementation research |
---|---|---|
Research participants | Individuals | Countries, institutions, communities, and individuals |
Informed consent | Informed consent by competent individuals, assent by minors and consent by legally authorized representatives | Consent may be difficult to obtain in cluster randomized trial design. There may be a need for a two level consent—consent for randomization from gatekeepers and consent for participation at the individual level. Sometimes individual consent may not be feasible. However, gatekeeper consent does not replace the need for individual consent. Ethical committee should oversee the informed consent requirement and process |
Equipoise | Clinical equipoise | Clinical as well as contextual equipoise (genuine uncertainty that the implementation will work in a new context as well as whether the implementation package will work at all) |
Pre-requisites | Understanding of disease pathophysiology Intervention aimed at disease-specific management | Identification of population health needs Understanding relative priority of need for intervention within local context Community engagement to understand community needs, ensure scalability, and sustainability |
Research conditions | Generally controlled research environment | Real-life or pragmatic research environment |
Research designs | Cross-sectional, case-control studies, Cohort studies, randomized clinical trials | Cluster randomized trials Pragmatic, mixed methods, effectiveness implementation hybrid designs, participatory action research, quasi-experimental design, realist review |
Integration within health system | Often, there is no a priori plan for health system integration. Findings of clinical research go through IR before integration into health system | IR has a strong health system strengthening focus. It creates horizontal integration into the health system. There is an ethical imperative for health system integration |
Predominant research disciplines | Physiology, genetics, biochemistry, and other basic sciences, epidemiology, clinical medicine | Anthropology Economics Epidemiology Political science Public health Sociology |
Control groups | In most epidemiological designs, control groups are required. But some phase 1 clinical trials and observational studies may not require control groups | Having a no intervention control group may not be acceptable. Alternative designs of quasi-experimental studies do not require a control group |
Boundary between research and clinical care | This boundary is usually clear, but may be unclear in case of therapeutic misconception especially in cancer trials | Is often unclear, because the intervention is of proven efficacy |
Types of research question | Efficacy and safety of a therapeutic strategy in the individual | Operationalization of an intervention in local context Implementation of an intervention in local context prior to scale-up Policy analysis Health system functioning at multiple levels |
Anticipated outcomes | Well-defined hypothesis at the beginning of the clinical research. Expected outcomes clearly stated. | Multifaceted holistic impact on health systems functioning with regard to intervention tested. Sometimes outcomes may be unexpected |
Risks assumed by: | Mostly, the risks are for the study participants. However, families and communities may also be affected in specific contexts | Usually population level risks. Moreover, the people getting the benefits and people suffering the risks may be different. |
Benefits accrued by: | Benefits accrue to the participants, the community. The research finding may be a common good | Individuals, communities, health system, institutions may benefit. The research findings may be common good. The people accruing benefits may be different from those who suffer risks |
Generalizability | Generalizability is sometimes possible in multicentric and well sampled studies, however most studies are specific to the target populations. | Generalizability may be limited by contextual factors. However, findings may be generalizable to similar contexts |
Social justice implications | Social justice is usually not a primary consideration. However, justice considerations are required in selection of research participants. Research on vulnerable participants is often contentious because of compromised autonomy and other logistics | Social justice considerations are primary. Working with vulnerable groups essential to understand implementation issues in these groups so that the intervention can reach them |
Implementation research of strategies to improve vaccine coverage in children in nomadic populations |
---|
Study description. Country X had a low rate of vaccine coverage largely because a significant group of nomadic populations were not reached by the routine vaccination strategies. A basic needs assessment was performed among the nomadic populations and found their vaccine coverage rate to be very low. In addition, the assessment found that insufficient knowledge of the location of the nomadic populations, lack of logistical support and lack of community engagement in the vaccination drives were important reasons for poor coverage. In order to overcome these problems, an implementation research study was planned. Special Outreach Teams (SOTs) were trained and deployed to a selected sample of known nomadic groups. These SOTs were provided with all logistical requirements such as vehicles, ice boxes, vaccine stocks, and temperature logs. They were also trained to engage with the communities, to deliver the vaccinations to the children under five according to schedule and also to collect data on the existing level of vaccine coverage, numbers vaccinated, documentation of feasibility challenges, and costs. The SOTs coordinated their work with the routine health care workers in the communities where these nomadic groups were stationed at the time of contact. In addition, a small subsample of the nomadic groups were invited to participate in a mobile phone-based GPS tracking study to assess the feasibility and utility of locating the nomadic groups in real-time. Solar powered battery packs were provided to the key members of the community who held the GPS tracking mobile phone. Their GPS coordinates were relayed to the SOTs so that they can deliver their services effectively. |
Ethical issues. This implementation research study brings out several important ethical considerations. There is an ethical imperative to engage and work with this special marginalized group in order to increase coverage of vaccination as it is the duty of the health system to protect and promote their health and also in order to more effectively protect the rest of the community with whom the nomadic groups will come in contact. Equipoise to justify the conduct of the study lies primarily in the uncertainty of how the intervention will be taken up and effective within this context as it is known that the vaccinations are effective from other populations. Despite this fact, however, effectiveness of the vaccine should be tracked in this new population as there may be modifiers of the effect, e.g., nutritional status etc. that may also require ancillary care. The findings of the study will help understand the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention among nomadic communities thus facilitating the implementation of the vaccination coverage campaign. Community engagement is a key ethical consideration in this context. Marginalized communities like these have inherent mistrust in health systems and community engagement helps build trust. Identification of appropriate gatekeepers of the community by appropriate selection process will facilitate both the informed consent process as well as representation of long-term voices of the communities. The tracking of the position of the nomadic groups for the sake of facilitating the vaccination process using the GPS tracking system is a significant intrusion into the privacy of the communities. This needs to be carefully weighed and balanced against the benefits of enhanced vaccine coverage and reduced child mortality because of that. Moreover, confidentiality of the GPS tracking data should be clearly maintained. Issues of sharing the GPS tracking position with local health system, other parties who may be interested to track them for other purposes etc. needs to be carefully deliberated. In addition, it is likely that many other health needs would be identified in these communities, raising the ethical issues associated with ancillary care responsibilities. |
Ethical concerns in the planning phase of IR
Responsiveness of IR
Equipoise
Study design
IR design | Features | Example | Ethical concerns |
---|---|---|---|
Cluster randomized trials (group randomized, place-based, community wide intervention trials) | -Random allocation of groups or “clusters” to study arms and outcomes are measured in individual subjects and at community level | -Randomization of clusters of obstetrics unit staff to education on hand washing or usual practice, measurement of rates of puerperal sepsis in women delivering at study clinics | -Different units of intervention and outcomes measurement -Consent before and after randomization, whom to consent? -Choice of gatekeepers -No opt-out option within cluster -Risk: benefit balance -Ethics of randomization to known intervention, equipoise, -Identification of vulnerable groups |
Effectiveness-implementation hybrid trials | -Assess both effectiveness and implementation strategy simultaneously -Identify intervention—implementation interactions | -Evaluate impact of ITN on reduction of malaria and assess robustness of availability and uptake of ITNs in the community | -The trade-off between the scientific rigor required for effectiveness assessment and the realistic contextual considerations required for implementation is an important ethical consideration |
Mixed-methods research | -Use of both qualitative and quantitative methods -Understands various perspectives -Rationales: “participant enrichment”, “instrument validity”, implementation validity”, “meaning enhancement” | -Integration of HIV and TB management in single clinics—patient experience (qualitative) and adherence (quantitative) | -The trade-off between the scientific rigor required for quantitative methods and the realistic contextual considerations required for the qualitative component |
Participatory action research | -Research question, design, and data collection in a participative manner by the research participants -“Bottom-up” approach | -Peer support groups to improve adherence to ARV in HIV + subjects | -There is a need for community engagement to ensure responsiveness, sustainability, and scalability |
Pragmatic trials | -Effects of intervention in routine practice -Maximize variability of settings, practitioners, patients | -Introduction of community health workers for home management of malaria | -There may be concerns of standards of care and ancillary care, which in pragmatic conditions may be ethically debatable. |
Quasi-experimental study | -Real-life conditions -With or without control group No randomization | -Open label demonstration project of effectiveness of self-reported use of pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV | -There is a concern regarding scientific rigor of the research |
Realist view | -Analysis of how and why an intervention works in a context combining theory and empirical evidence. | -Integration of traditional healers into home management of malaria strategies | -Community engagement is of utmost importance to retain cultural and contextual sensitivity |