8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ethical, regulatory, and practical barriers to COVID-19 research: A stakeholder-informed inventory of concerns

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) has caused death and economic injury around the globe. The urgent need for COVID-19 research created new ethical, regulatory, and practical challenges. The next public health emergency could be worse than COVID-19. We must learn about these challenges from the experiences of researchers and Research Ethics Committee professionals responsible for these COVID-19 studies to prepare for the next emergency.

          Materials and methods

          We conducted an online survey to identify the ethical, oversight, and regulatory challenges of conducting COVID-19 research during the early pandemic, and proposed solutions for overcoming these barriers. Using criterion-based, convenience sampling, we invited researchers who proposed or conducted COVID-19 research to complete an anonymous, online survey about their experiences. We administered a separate but related survey to Institutional Review Board (IRB) professionals who reviewed COVID-19 research studies. The surveys included open-ended and demographic items. We performed inductive content analysis on responses to open-ended survey questions.

          Results

          IRB professionals (n = 143) and researchers (n = 211) described 19 types of barriers to COVID-19 research, related to 5 overarching categories: policy and regulatory, biases and misperceptions, institutional and inter-institutional conflicts, risks of harm, and pressure of the pandemic. Researchers and IRB professionals described 8 categories of adaptations and solutions to these challenges: enacting technological solutions; developing protocol-based solutions; disposition and team management; establishing and communicating appropriate standards; national guidance and leadership; maintaining high standards; prioritizing studies before IRB review; and identifying and incorporating experts.

          Discussion and conclusions

          This inventory of challenges represents ongoing barriers to studying the current pandemic, and they represent a risk to research during future public health emergencies. Delays in studies of a pandemic during a pandemic threatens the health and safety of the public. We urge the development of a national working group to address these issues before the next public health emergency arises.

          Related collections

          Most cited references37

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

          Content analysis is a widely used qualitative research technique. Rather than being a single method, current applications of content analysis show three distinct approaches: conventional, directed, or summative. All three approaches are used to interpret meaning from the content of text data and, hence, adhere to the naturalistic paradigm. The major differences among the approaches are coding schemes, origins of codes, and threats to trustworthiness. In conventional content analysis, coding categories are derived directly from the text data. With a directed approach, analysis starts with a theory or relevant research findings as guidance for initial codes. A summative content analysis involves counting and comparisons, usually of keywords or content, followed by the interpretation of the underlying context. The authors delineate analytic procedures specific to each approach and techniques addressing trustworthiness with hypothetical examples drawn from the area of end-of-life care.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The qualitative content analysis process.

            This paper is a description of inductive and deductive content analysis. Content analysis is a method that may be used with either qualitative or quantitative data and in an inductive or deductive way. Qualitative content analysis is commonly used in nursing studies but little has been published on the analysis process and many research books generally only provide a short description of this method. When using content analysis, the aim was to build a model to describe the phenomenon in a conceptual form. Both inductive and deductive analysis processes are represented as three main phases: preparation, organizing and reporting. The preparation phase is similar in both approaches. The concepts are derived from the data in inductive content analysis. Deductive content analysis is used when the structure of analysis is operationalized on the basis of previous knowledge. Inductive content analysis is used in cases where there are no previous studies dealing with the phenomenon or when it is fragmented. A deductive approach is useful if the general aim was to test a previous theory in a different situation or to compare categories at different time periods.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations.

              Standards for reporting exist for many types of quantitative research, but currently none exist for the broad spectrum of qualitative research. The purpose of the present study was to formulate and define standards for reporting qualitative research while preserving the requisite flexibility to accommodate various paradigms, approaches, and methods.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – original draftRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Project administrationRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Data curationRole: Formal analysisRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: ConceptualizationRole: Funding acquisitionRole: InvestigationRole: ResourcesRole: SupervisionRole: Writing – review & editing
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS One
                plos
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
                1932-6203
                24 March 2022
                2022
                24 March 2022
                : 17
                : 3
                : e0265252
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United State of America
                [2 ] Division of General Medical Sciences, Bioethics Research Center, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America
                Faculty of Health Sciences - Universidade da Beira Interior, PORTUGAL
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2456-2476
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3712-7051
                Article
                PONE-D-21-35672
                10.1371/journal.pone.0265252
                8947496
                35324933
                b4d5d3e2-7c65-4caa-bc3e-f8f79e559b00
                © 2022 Sisk et al

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 9 November 2021
                : 25 February 2022
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 5, Pages: 23
                Funding
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100006108, National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences;
                Award ID: UL1TR002345
                Award Recipient :
                Funded by: funder-id http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000049, National Institute on Aging;
                Award ID: R01AG058254-03S1
                Award Recipient :
                This project was supported by the National Institute on Aging grant R01AG058254-03S1 (DuBois, PI) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Science grant UL1TR002345 (DuBois). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://www.nia.nih.gov/ https://ncats.nih.gov/.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Medical Conditions
                Infectious Diseases
                Viral Diseases
                Covid 19
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Pandemics
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Epidemiology
                Medical Risk Factors
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Surveys
                Science Policy
                Research Integrity
                Research Ethics
                Research and Analysis Methods
                Research Design
                Survey Research
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Public and Occupational Health
                Medicine and Health Sciences
                Critical Care and Emergency Medicine
                Custom metadata
                We have deposited all data, survey instruments, and codebooks with Open ICPSR. Here is a reference to the data set with the DOI: DuBois, James M., and Sisk, Bryan. Innovative Medicine and Research on COVID-19 (C19): Addressing Potential Ethical, Oversight, and Regulatory Barriers. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2022-03-10. https://doi.org/10.3886/E164581V1.
                COVID-19

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article