The Ethics of Ethics Reviews in Global Health Research: Case Studies Applying a New Paradigm

With increasing calls for global health research there is growing concern regarding the ethical challenges encountered by researchers from high-income countries (HICs) working in low or middle-income countries (LMICs). There is a dearth of literature on how to address these challenges in practice. In this article, we conduct a critical analysis of three case studies of research conducted in LMICs.We apply emerging ethical guidelines and principles specific to global health research and offer practical strategies that researchers ought to consider. We present case studies in which Canadian health professional students conducted a health promotion project in a community in Honduras; a research capacity-building program in South Africa, in which Canadian students also worked alongside LMIC partners; and a community-university partnered research capacity-building program in which Ecuadorean graduate students, some working alongside Canadian students, conducted community-based health research projects in Ecuadorean communities.We examine each case, identifying ethical issues that emerged and how new ethical paradigms being promoted could be concretely applied.We conclude that research ethics boards should focus not only on protecting individual integrity and human dignity in health studies but also on beneficence and non-maleficence at the community level, explicitly considering social justice issues and local capacity-building imperatives.We conclude that researchers from HICs interested in global health research must work with LMIC partners to implement collaborative processes for assuring ethical research that respects local knowledge, cultural factors, the social determination of health, community participation and partnership, and making social accountability a paramount concern.

Building synergies in development research: The application of the mosaic model to animal health research

Development research has responded to a number of charges over the past few decades. For example, when traditional research was accused of being 'top-down', the response was participatory research, linking the 'receptors' to the generators of research. As participatory processes were recognised as producing limited outcomes, the demand-led agenda was born. In response to the alleged failure of research to deliver its products, the 'joined-up' model, which links research with the private sector, has become popular. However, using examples from animal-health research, this article demonstrates that all the aforementioned approaches are seriously limited in their attempts to generate outputs to address the multi-faceted problems facing the poor. The article outlines a new approach to research: the Mosaic Model. By combining different knowledge forms, and focusing on existing gaps, the model aims to bridge basic and applied findings to enhance the efficiency and value of research, past, present, and future.

Global priority setting for Cochrane systematic reviews of health promotion and public health research

Background: Systematic reviews of health promotion and public health interventions are increasingly being conducted to assist public policy decision making. Many intra-country initiatives have been established to conduct systematic reviews in their relevant public health areas. The Cochrane Collaboration, an international organisation established to conduct and publish systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, is committed to high quality reviews that are regularly updated, published electronically, and meeting the needs of the consumers.

Aims: To identify global priorities for Cochrane systematic reviews of public health topics.

Methods: Systematic reviews of public health interventions were identified and mapped against global health risks. Global health organisations were engaged and nominated policy-urgent titles, evidence based selection criteria were applied to set priorities.

Results: 26 priority systematic review titles were identified, addressing interventions such as community building activities, pre-natal and early infancy psychosocial outcomes, and improving the nutrition status of refugee and displaced populations.

Discussion: The 26 priority titles provide an opportunity for potential reviewers and indeed, the Cochrane Collaboration as a whole, to address the previously unmet needs of global health policy and research agencies.

Are the potential benefits of a community-based participatory approach to public health research worth the potential cost?

Much of public health research is conducted in a community setting or is designed to target particular population groups. Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is gaining recognition as good practice in studies of this type(Flicker et al 2007). Its merit is based on the inclusion of the community as active participants at all stages of the research process (Goodman 2006). The focus on justice and equity in this approach is seen to contribute to a range of additional potential research benefits including increased relevance and sustainability of interventions arising from the research ( Blumenthal 2004; Wallestein 2006) However, it is widely acknowledged that adoption of a consciously CBPR approach requires additional expertise. time and resources from researchers and from communities (Tanjasiri et al 2002; Massaro & Claiborne 2001; Israel et al 1998). Adoption of CBPR is also limited by existing infrastructures which are supportive of more· traditional models of research. Changes to professional development programs, funding guidelines and criteria. grant review processes and ethics requirements are needed to support increased application of this approach (Israel et al 2001). As all research resources are limited, the potential additional benefits offered by CBPR over and above a more traditional research approach need to be weighed against the potential additional costs involved. Changes to research infrastructure are unlikely to occur until the costs and
benefits of a consciously CBPR approach as compared to a more traditional research approach can be demonstrated.

This is an exploratory paper that summarises the arguments put forward to date in relation to CBPR. A research case study and an evaluation framework are then used for a conceptual analysis of differences in the potential costs and benefits of the two approaches. Firstly, the paper describes the differences between traditional and consciously CBPR approaches. The reported benefits of CBPR are then outlined, followed by a discussion of the potential costs. Finally, the potential costs are compared to the potential benefits of using a CBPR approach, using a case study of existing research.

Nutrition and mental health research in Australia and New Zealand: A review of progress and directions for the future

This review summarises nutrition and mental health research in Australia and New Zealand between 1986 and 2006. The method used to identify papers for inclusion was a search of computerised databases: Medline, Cinahl and Meditext 1986–2006, with subsequent bibliographical review. Key search words were nutrition, diet, mental disorder, mental illness, weight, physical health, Australia and New Zealand. Inclusion criteria included: English language, original data in peer reviewed journals, and examination of some component of nutrition in people with a mental illness. The review of thirteen papers found that the evidence base for dietetic practice in mental health has developed through small assessment and interventional research, often with multidisciplinary collaboration. Future research should include quality and outcome measures with intersectoral partnerships. Dietitians are well positioned to lead and participate in mental health research and to implement research findings to improve the nutritional status of this vulnerable group.

Robustness in health research : do differences in health measures, techniques, and time frame matter?

Survey-based health research is in a boom phase following an increased amount of health spending in OECD countries and the interest in ageing. A general characteristic of survey-based health research is its diversity. Different studies are based on different health questions in different datasets; they use different statistical techniques; they differ in whether they approach health from an ordinal or cardinal perspective; and they differ in whether they measure short-term or long-term effects. The question in this paper is simple: do these differences matter for the findings? We investigate the effects of life-style choices (drinking, smoking, exercise) and income on six measures of health in the US Health and Retirement Study (HRS) between 1992 and 2002: (1) self-assessed general health status, (2) problems with undertaking daily tasks and chores, (3) mental health indicators, (4) BMI, (5) the presence of serious long-term health conditions, and (6) mortality. We compare ordinal models with cardinal models; we compare models with fixed effects to models without fixed-effects; and we compare short-term effects to long-term effects. We find considerable variation in the impact of different determinants on our chosen health outcome measures; we find that it matters whether ordinality or cardinality is assumed; we find substantial differences between estimates that account for fixed effects versus those that do not; and we find that short-run and long-run effects differ greatly. All this implies that health is an even more complicated notion than hitherto thought, defying generalizations from one measure to the others or one methodology to another.