Thesis (MPH)--University of Limpopo, 2010. / Background The National Health Research Ethics Council (NHREC) of South Africa (SA) is mandated to oversee health research ethics activities within the country. The oversight role is achieved through registration and auditing of Health Research Ethics committees (RECs). This study indicates that 22 RECs are registered with the NHREC. Purpose This study examines compliance levels of registered RECs with the SA DOH national health research ethics guidelines regarding composition and operational procedures as well as highlight commonalities and differences. Methods Secondary data of 22 RECs registered with NHREC were used to examine the level of compliance related to composition and operational procedures disaggregated by REC. Data were processed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS). Categories of systematic compliance, non-systematic compliance and non-compliance were used to determine RECs compliance levels with the standards specified in the DOH national ethics guidelines in research. Results Registered RECs in South Africa have an average membership of 16 ranging from 6 to 35. The RECs membership on gender has a 6% marginal difference and is dominated (68%) by scientists or clinicians. Majority (82%) of RECs have lay persons and 77% legal representatives. Eighty six percent of RECs xvi complied with operational procedures as stipulated by DOH national health research ethics guidelines. Conclusions Most RECs in SA registered with NHREC have a functional structure and are well organized. However, RECs demonstrated a non-systematic compliance with composition and procedures of DOH national guidelines. Most RECs based at public hospitals, government department and private organizations experienced high variations. Disparities related to gender, professional identity, legal and lay representations are noticeable and could be easily addressed.

Unique characteristics of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) complicate the interpretation of standard research ethics guidelines. Variable interpretation by research ethics committees may further complicate review and conduct. An international web-based survey was administered to corresponding authors of 300 randomly sampled CRT publications. We investigated ethics review and consent practices, investigator experiences with ethics review, and the perceived need for CRT-specific ethics guidelines. The response rate was 64%. Ethics review and consent were under-reported in publications. Ethics approval was obtained in 91%, and consent from individual and cluster level participants in 79% and 82% of trials. Consent varied by level of experimental intervention, data collection, and cluster size. Respondents cited variability among ethics committees (46%), and negative impacts of ethics review on their studies (38%). The majority perceived a need for ethics guidelines (73%), and guidance for ethics committees (70%). CRT-specific ethics guidelines are required to ensure practices meet ethical standards.

Unique characteristics of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) complicate the interpretation of standard research ethics guidelines. Variable interpretation by research ethics committees may further complicate review and conduct. An international web-based survey was administered to corresponding authors of 300 randomly sampled CRT publications. We investigated ethics review and consent practices, investigator experiences with ethics review, and the perceived need for CRT-specific ethics guidelines. The response rate was 64%. Ethics review and consent were under-reported in publications. Ethics approval was obtained in 91%, and consent from individual and cluster level participants in 79% and 82% of trials. Consent varied by level of experimental intervention, data collection, and cluster size. Respondents cited variability among ethics committees (46%), and negative impacts of ethics review on their studies (38%). The majority perceived a need for ethics guidelines (73%), and guidance for ethics committees (70%). CRT-specific ethics guidelines are required to ensure practices meet ethical standards.

Unique characteristics of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) complicate the interpretation of standard research ethics guidelines. Variable interpretation by research ethics committees may further complicate review and conduct. An international web-based survey was administered to corresponding authors of 300 randomly sampled CRT publications. We investigated ethics review and consent practices, investigator experiences with ethics review, and the perceived need for CRT-specific ethics guidelines. The response rate was 64%. Ethics review and consent were under-reported in publications. Ethics approval was obtained in 91%, and consent from individual and cluster level participants in 79% and 82% of trials. Consent varied by level of experimental intervention, data collection, and cluster size. Respondents cited variability among ethics committees (46%), and negative impacts of ethics review on their studies (38%). The majority perceived a need for ethics guidelines (73%), and guidance for ethics committees (70%). CRT-specific ethics guidelines are required to ensure practices meet ethical standards.

What role should trust have in biobank research? Is it a scarce resource to be cultivated, or does its moral significance lie elsewhere? How does it relate to the researcher’s individual responsibility? In this thesis I draw four general conclusions. First, trust is still very much present in at least some biobanking settings, notably in Sweden, but possibly also internationally. Second, a morally relevant conception of trust entails that to be trustworthy, researchers must consider the normative expectations that people have of them, and renegotiate expectations that are mistaken. Third, this conception differs from “public trust” assessed through surveys. The main use of the latter is to legitimate policy, not to identify moral duties. Fourth, in spite of ethics review, guidelines and informed consent procedures, ethical issues will always arise during the course of a research project. Researchers can therefore never avoid their individual moral responsibility. Ensuring that one is adequately trusted is one step towards conducting morally acceptable research. Study I indicates that few Swedes refuse storage of samples in healthcare-associated biobanks and their use in research. Study II suggests that people are somewhat more willing to donate samples than surveys indicate, especially when approached face-to-face by health care personnel. Relationships of trust might thus be important in people’s decision-making. Study III investigates trust as a moral concept. The trustee is often in a unique position to determine what the other’s trust amounts to. When it is mistaken, the trustee has an obligation to counteract it, compensate for it, or renegotiate the expectations that cannot be met. In Study IV, I critique the feasibility of guaranteeing the trustworthiness of the research apparatus through formal measures such as ethics review and guidelines. Not only are there limitations of such measures to consider. They also risk blinding researchers to ethical issues that are not covered by the rules, fostering moral complacency, and alienating researchers to ethics.