Cargando…

A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting

BACKGROUND: Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a form of rapid ethnographic assessment conducted at the beginning of research project to guide the consent process with the objective of reconciling universal ethical guidance with specific research contexts. The current study is conducted to assess the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Addissie, Adamu, Davey, Gail, Newport, Melanie J, Addissie, Thomas, MacGregor, Hayley, Feleke, Yeweyenhareg, Farsides, Bobbie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-35
_version_ 1782320638546935808
author Addissie, Adamu
Davey, Gail
Newport, Melanie J
Addissie, Thomas
MacGregor, Hayley
Feleke, Yeweyenhareg
Farsides, Bobbie
author_facet Addissie, Adamu
Davey, Gail
Newport, Melanie J
Addissie, Thomas
MacGregor, Hayley
Feleke, Yeweyenhareg
Farsides, Bobbie
author_sort Addissie, Adamu
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a form of rapid ethnographic assessment conducted at the beginning of research project to guide the consent process with the objective of reconciling universal ethical guidance with specific research contexts. The current study is conducted to assess the perceived relevance of introducing REA as a mainstream tool in Ethiopia. METHODS: Mixed methods research using a sequential explanatory approach was conducted from July to September 2012, including 241 cross-sectional, self-administered and 19 qualitative, in-depth interviews among health researchers and regulators including ethics committee members in Ethiopian health research institutions and universities. RESULTS: In their evaluation of the consent process, only 40.2% thought that the consent process and information given were adequately understood by study participants; 84.6% claimed they were not satisfied with the current consent process and 85.5% thought the best interests of study participants were not adequately considered. Commonly mentioned consent-related problems included lack of clarity (48.1%), inadequate information (34%), language barriers (28.2%), cultural differences (27.4%), undue expectations (26.6%) and power imbalances (20.7%). About 95.4% believed that consent should be contextualized to the study setting and 39.4% thought REA would be an appropriate approach to improve the perceived problems. Qualitative findings helped to further explore the gaps identified in the quantitative findings and to map-out concerns related to the current research consent process in Ethiopia. Suggestions included, conducting REA during the pre-test (pilot) phase of studies when applicable. The need for clear guidance for researchers on issues such as when and how to apply the REA tools was stressed. CONCLUSION: The study findings clearly indicated that there are perceived to be correctable gaps in the consent process of medical research in Ethiopia. REA is considered relevant by researchers and stakeholders to address these gaps. Exploring further the feasibility and applicability of REA is recommended.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4055294
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-40552942014-06-13 A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting Addissie, Adamu Davey, Gail Newport, Melanie J Addissie, Thomas MacGregor, Hayley Feleke, Yeweyenhareg Farsides, Bobbie BMC Med Ethics Research Article BACKGROUND: Rapid Ethical Assessment (REA) is a form of rapid ethnographic assessment conducted at the beginning of research project to guide the consent process with the objective of reconciling universal ethical guidance with specific research contexts. The current study is conducted to assess the perceived relevance of introducing REA as a mainstream tool in Ethiopia. METHODS: Mixed methods research using a sequential explanatory approach was conducted from July to September 2012, including 241 cross-sectional, self-administered and 19 qualitative, in-depth interviews among health researchers and regulators including ethics committee members in Ethiopian health research institutions and universities. RESULTS: In their evaluation of the consent process, only 40.2% thought that the consent process and information given were adequately understood by study participants; 84.6% claimed they were not satisfied with the current consent process and 85.5% thought the best interests of study participants were not adequately considered. Commonly mentioned consent-related problems included lack of clarity (48.1%), inadequate information (34%), language barriers (28.2%), cultural differences (27.4%), undue expectations (26.6%) and power imbalances (20.7%). About 95.4% believed that consent should be contextualized to the study setting and 39.4% thought REA would be an appropriate approach to improve the perceived problems. Qualitative findings helped to further explore the gaps identified in the quantitative findings and to map-out concerns related to the current research consent process in Ethiopia. Suggestions included, conducting REA during the pre-test (pilot) phase of studies when applicable. The need for clear guidance for researchers on issues such as when and how to apply the REA tools was stressed. CONCLUSION: The study findings clearly indicated that there are perceived to be correctable gaps in the consent process of medical research in Ethiopia. REA is considered relevant by researchers and stakeholders to address these gaps. Exploring further the feasibility and applicability of REA is recommended. BioMed Central 2014-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC4055294/ /pubmed/24885049 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-35 Text en Copyright © 2014 Addissie et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Addissie, Adamu
Davey, Gail
Newport, Melanie J
Addissie, Thomas
MacGregor, Hayley
Feleke, Yeweyenhareg
Farsides, Bobbie
A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title_full A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title_fullStr A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title_full_unstemmed A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title_short A mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of Rapid Ethical Assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
title_sort mixed-methods study on perceptions towards use of rapid ethical assessment to improve informed consent processes for health research in a low-income setting
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4055294/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24885049
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1472-6939-15-35
work_keys_str_mv AT addissieadamu amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT daveygail amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT newportmelaniej amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT addissiethomas amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT macgregorhayley amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT felekeyeweyenhareg amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT farsidesbobbie amixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT addissieadamu mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT daveygail mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT newportmelaniej mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT addissiethomas mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT macgregorhayley mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT felekeyeweyenhareg mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting
AT farsidesbobbie mixedmethodsstudyonperceptionstowardsuseofrapidethicalassessmenttoimproveinformedconsentprocessesforhealthresearchinalowincomesetting