Charles Weijer

Randomized controlled trials are central to progress in medicine, but trialists commonly struggle to recruit the required number of participants. Offering financial incentives is one proposed solution, but financial incentives may be problematic when they become irresistible and, thus, undermine the autonomy of potential participants. While some have dismissed this worry about undue inducement and argued that we should be paying participants more to avoid exploitation, we argue that this line of argument is based on a too narrow conception of undue inducement and does not fully appreciate the distinction between reimbursement, compensation, and financial incentives. On another, often overlooked concept of undue inducement, large incentives are an undue inducement when they are irresistible for people who do not want to participate and, thus, undermine voluntariness. This gives reason to limit the financial incentives to trial participants. We argue, furthermore, that large financial incentives could also be disproportionally attractive for people from economically marginalized groups and result in an unjust distribution of the burdens of research participation. We conclude that, while small sums of money are permissible as incentives, larger financial incentives should be avoided. We end by responding to the objection that keeping payments to participants small would be a form of exploitation. We argue that this argument does not apply to financial incentives. Unlike reimbursements and compensation, financial incentives are not payments to which participants can have a claim and, therefore, fall outside the scope of exploitation arguments.

BackgroundAlthough commonly used to evaluate health interventions, cluster randomized trials raise difficult ethical issues. Recognizing this, the Ottawa Statement on the Ethical Design and Conduct of Cluster Randomized Trials, published in 2012, provides 15 recommendations to address ethical issues across seven domains. But due to several developments in the design and implementation of cluster randomized trials, there are new issues requiring guidance. To inform the forthcoming update of the Ottawa Statement, we aimed to identify any gaps in the Ottawa Statement discussed within the literature.MethodsWe searched Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science using the ‘cited by’ function on 11 November 2022.We included all types of publications, including articles, book chapters, commentaries, editorials, ethics guidelines, theses and trial-related publications (i.e., primary reports, protocols, and secondary analyses), that cited and engaged with the Ottawa Statement, the Ottawa Statement précis, or one or more of its four background papers. Data were extracted by four reviewers working in rotating pairs. Reviewers captured relevant text verbatim and recorded whether it reflected a gap relating to one or more of the Ottawa Statement domains. Using a thematic analysis approach, semantic coding was used to summarize the content of the data into distinct gaps within the Ottawa Statement domains, which was subsequently expanded in an inductive manner through discussion.ResultsThe qualitative analysis of the text from 53 articles resulted in the identification of 24 distinct gaps in the Ottawa Statement: 4 gaps about justifying the cluster randomized design; 2 gaps about research ethics committee review; 3 gaps about identifying research participants; 4 gaps about obtaining informed consent; 3 gaps about gatekepeers; 6 gaps about assessing benefits and harms; 1 gap about protecting vulnerable participants; and 1 gap about equity-related issues in cluster randomized trials.ConclusionIdentifying 24 gaps reveals a need to update the Ottawa Statement. Alongside additional gaps identified in ongoing empirical work and through engagement with our patient and public partners, the gaps identified through this citation analysis should be considered in the forthcoming Ottawa Statement update.

Ethical considerations are fundamental to responsible research, yet many investigators struggle to identify and analyze ethical concerns in their study designs. Institutional review boards (IRBs) and other regulatory bodies, while essential, are often perceived as bureaucratic obstacles rather than collaborative partners in ethical inquiry. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer an opportunity to enhance the way researchers engage with ethical analysis. This paper introduces EthicsBot, an innovative project that proposes to leverage opensource LLMs to provide real-time, context-aware ethical guidance for researchers.

The robust design and conduct of pragmatic cluster randomised trials may be in tension with the ethical requirement to obtain written informed consent from prospective research participants. In our experience, researchers tend to focus on whether a waiver of consent is appropriate for their studies. However, pragmatic cluster randomised trials raise other important questions that have direct implications for determining when an alteration or waiver of consent is permissible. To assist those involved in the design, conduct and review of pragmatic cluster randomised trials, we outline four critical questions to consider: (1) What is the nature of the intervention being evaluated? (2) Is the choice to use cluster randomisation justified? (3) Can the risk of recruitment bias be addressed? and (4) Is an alteration or waiver of consent appropriately justified? We recommend that researchers and research ethics committees conduct a stepwise analysis of a planned cluster randomised trial using these questions. To illustrate the application of this stepwise analysis, we use three pragmatic cluster randomised trials in the haemodialysis setting as case studies.

Recent research suggests that a minority of patients diagnosed as vegetative using traditional behavioral assessments may be covertly aware. One of the most pressing concerns with respect to these patients is their welfare. This article examines foundational issues concerning the application of a theory of welfare to these patients, and develops a research agenda with patient welfare as a central focus. We argue that patients diagnosed as vegetative with covert awareness likely have sentient interests, and because sentient interests are sufficient for moral status, others have an obligation to take the welfare interests of these patients seriously. However, we do not view sentient interests as necessary for moral status, and thus it is possible that vegetative patients who lack such interests have moral status for other reasons. We propose four areas in which future research is needed to guide the ethical treatment of these patients: the assessment and management of pain; the development of quality of life assessments; end-of-life decision making; and enriching the day-to-day lives of these patients.

PrécisThe administration of Pre-Mortem Interventions (PMIs) to preserve the opportunity to donate, to assess the eligibility to donate, or to optimize the outcomes of donation and transplantation are controversial as they offer no direct medical benefit and include at least the possibility of harm to the still-living patient. In this article, we describe the legal analysis surrounding consent to PMIs, drawing on existing legal commentary and identifying key legal problems. We provide an overview of the approaches in several jurisdictions that have chosen to explicitly address PMIs within codified law. We then provide, as an example, a detailed exploration of how PMIs are likely to be addressed in one jurisdiction where general medical consent law applies because there is no specific legislation addressing PMIs — the province of Ontario in Canada.

The COVID-19 pandemic touched off an unprecedented search for vaccines and treatments. Without question, the development of vaccines to prevent COVID-19 was an enormous scientific accomplishment. Further, the RECOVERY and Solidarity trials identified effective treatments for COVID-19. But all was not success. The urgent need for COVID-19 prevention and treatment fueled an embrace of risks—to research participants and to the reliability of the science itself—as allegedly necessary costs to speed scientific progress. Scientists and (even) ethicists supported overturning longstanding norms protecting healthy volunteers in human challenge trials to speed vaccine development, but these trials led to no vaccines. Physicians, with the approval of research ethics committees, designed hundreds of unblinded, single-center clinical trials at high risk of bias to speed the identification of new treatments. But these clinical trials led to no treatments. The lesson for future pandemics is that the acceptance of greater risks to participants or science does not reliably lead to progress. We are better served by science that upholds the highest ethical and methodological standards.

Background Pragmatic randomized controlled trials are designed to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in real-world clinical conditions. However, these studies raise ethical issues for researchers and regulators. Our objective is to identify a list of key ethical issues in pragmatic RCTs and highlight gaps in the ethics literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review of articles addressing ethical aspects of pragmatic RCTs. After applying the search strategy and eligibility criteria, 36 articles were included and reviewed using content analysis. Results Our review identified four major themes: 1) the research-practice distinction; 2) the need for consent; 3) elements that must be disclosed in the consent process; and 4) appropriate oversight by research ethics committees. 1) Most authors reject the need for a research-practice distinction in pragmatic RCTs. They argue that the distinction rests on the presumptions that research participation offers patients less benefit and greater risk than clinical practice, but neither is true in the case of pragmatic RCTs. 2) Most authors further conclude that pragmatic RCTs may proceed without informed consent or with simplified consent procedures when risks are low and consent is infeasible. 3) Authors who endorse the need for consent assert that information need only be disclosed when research participation poses incremental risks compared to clinical practice. Authors disagree as to whether randomization must be disclosed. 4) Finally, all authors view regulatory oversight as burdensome and a practical impediment to the conduct of pragmatic RCTs, and argue that oversight procedures ought to be streamlined when risks to participants are low. Conclusion The current ethical discussion is framed by the assumption that the function of research oversight is to protect participants from risk. As pragmatic RCTs commonly involve usual care interventions, the risks may be minimal. This leads many to reject the research-practice distinction and question the need for informed consent. But the function of oversight should be understood broadly as protecting the liberty and welfare interest of participants and promoting public trust in research. This understanding, we suggest, will focus discussion on questions about appropriate ethical review for pragmatic RCTs.

ObjectivesTo describe reporting of informed consent in pragmatic trials, justifications for waivers of consent and reporting of alternative approaches to standard written consent. To identify factors associated with (1) not reporting and (2) not obtaining consent.MethodsSurvey of primary trial reports, published 2014–2019, identified using an electronic search filter for pragmatic trials implemented in MEDLINE, and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.ResultsAmong 1988 trials, 132 (6.6%) did not include a statement about participant consent, 1691 (85.0%) reported consent had been obtained, 139 (7.0%) reported a waiver and 26 (1.3%) reported consent for one aspect (eg, data collection) but a waiver for another (eg, intervention). Of the 165 trials reporting a waiver, 76 (46.1%) provided a justification. Few (53, 2.9%) explicitly reported use of alternative approaches to consent. In multivariable logistic regression analyses, lower journal impact factor (p=0.001) and cluster randomisation (p<0.0001) were significantly associated with not reporting on consent, while trial recency, cluster randomisation, higher-income country settings, health services research and explicit labelling as pragmatic were significantly associated with not obtaining consent (all p<0.0001).DiscussionNot obtaining consent seems to be increasing and is associated with the use of cluster randomisation and pragmatic aims, but neither cluster randomisation nor pragmatism are currently accepted justifications for waivers of consent. Rather than considering either standard written informed consent or waivers of consent, researchers and research ethics committees could consider alternative consent approaches that may facilitate the conduct of pragmatic trials while preserving patient autonomy and the public’s trust in research.

Non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients in intensive care presents complex ethical issues. The vulnerabilities of the imminently dying, together with societal disquiet around death and dying, contribute to an intuition that such research is beyond the legitimate scope of scientific inquiry. Yet excluding imminently dying patients from research hinders the advancement of medical science to the detriment of future patients. Building on existing ethical guidelines for research, we propose a framework for the ethical design and conduct of research involving the imminently dying. To enable rapid translation to practice, we frame the approach in the form of eight ethical questions that researchers and research ethics committees ought to answer prior to conducting any research with this patient population. (1) Does the study hypothesis require the inclusion of imminently dying patients? (2) Are non-therapeutic risks and burdens minimised consistent with sound scientific design? (3) Are the risks of these procedures no more than minimal risk? (4) Are these non-therapeutic risks justified insofar as they are reasonable in relation to the anticipated benefits of the study? (5) Will valid informed consent be obtained from an authorised surrogate decision maker? (6) How will incidental findings be handled? (7) What additional steps are in place to protect families and significant others of research participants? (8) What additional steps are in place to protect clinical staff and researchers? Several ethical challenges hinder research with imminently dying patients. Nonetheless, provided adequate protections are in place, non-therapeutic research with imminently dying patients is ethically justifiable. Applying our framework to an ongoing study, we demonstrate how our question-driven approach is well suited to guiding investigators and research ethics committees.

Experiences of substitute decision-makers with requests for consent to non-therapeutic research participation during the dying process, including to what degree such requests are perceived as burdensome, have not been well described. In this study, we explored the lived experiences of family members who consented to non-therapeutic research participation on behalf of an imminently dying patient. We interviewed 33 family members involved in surrogate research consent decisions for dying patients in intensive care. Non-therapeutic research involved continuous physiological monitoring of dying patients prior to and for 30 min following cessation of circulation. At some study centres participation involved installation of bedside computers. At one centre electroencephalogram monitoring was used with a subset of participants. Aside from additional monitoring, the research protocol did not involve deviations from usual end-of-life care. Thematic analysis of interviews suggests most family members did not perceive this minimal-risk, non-therapeutic study to affect their time with patients during the dying process, nor did they perceive research consent as an additional burden. In our analysis, consenting for participation in perimortem research offered families of the dying an opportunity to affirm the intrinsic value of patients’ lives and contributions. This opportunity may be particularly important for families of patients who consented to organ donation but did not proceed to organ retrieval. Our work supports concerns that traditional models of informed consent fail to account for possible benefits and harms of perimortem research to surviving families. Further research into consent models which integrate patient and family perspectives is needed. All data relevant to the study are included in the article.

Research participants are afforded protections to ensure their rights and welfare are not unduly jeopardized by research activities. Yet people who do not meet the criteria for research participant status may likewise be impacted by research activities, and ethicists argue that protections should be afforded these “research bystanders.” The standard rationale for extending protections to research bystanders contends that they are sufficiently like research participants that the ethical principles governing health research ought to extend to them. In this article we argue that this analogical reasoning is mistaken. Salient moral differences mean that research ethics frameworks are not fit for purpose. We defend the research bystander category by articulating a novel foundation for this new class of stakeholder. Focusing on bystanders directly impacted by publicly funded health research, we argue that bystanders are sometimes owed protections—but neither because of their similarity to research participants nor because research ethics principles should extend to them. Instead, we reframe the issue as a question of justice. Building on the work of Douglas MacKay, we argue that bystanders to publicly funded health research are owed protections as citizens of liberal states to whom the state owes duties of justice. The state has duties to protect the interests of citizens and to conduct health research. When the means by which the state fulfils the latter duty comes into conflict with the means by which it fulfils the former, the state must ensure that those impacted, including research bystanders, are afforded protections.

Key messages The research environment has changed since clinical equipoise was first proposed 30 years ago New trial designs—such as umbrella and basket trials, adaptive platform trials, and cluster randomised trials—raise new ethical challenges for evaluating the state of scientific uncertainty and communicating about risks with patients and participants Clinical equipoise needs to evolve We propose the design of specific guidelines to provide ethics committees and trialists with instructions for how to evaluate equipoise in the context of new designs and biomarkers and how to optimise communication with participants.

BackgroundEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs?MethodsGoogle Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories.Results and discussionApproximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19.

BackgroundSevere brain injury is a leading cause of death and disability. Diagnosis and prognostication are difficult, and errors occur often. Novel neuroimaging methods can improve diagnostic and prognostic accuracy, especially in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDoC). Yet it is currently unknown how family caregivers understand this information, raising ethical concerns that disclosure of neuroimaging results could result in therapeutic misconception or false hope.MethodsTo examine these ethical concerns, we conducted semi-structured interviews with caregivers of patients with PDoC who were enrolled in a concurrent neuroimaging research program designed to detect covert consciousness following severe brain injury. Caregivers held surrogate decision-making status for a patient. Interviews were conducted at two time points for each caregiver. The first interview occurred before the disclosure of neuroimaging results. The second occurred after disclosure. Descriptive analysis was applied to the data of four interview topics: (1) expectations for neuroimaging; (2) reactions to evidence of preserved cognition; (3) reactions to null results; and (4) understanding of the results and study.ResultsTwelve caregivers participated in the study; two caregivers shared surrogate decision-making status for one patient with PDoC. Twenty-one interviews were completed; one caregiver declined to participate in the post-disclosure interview. Three patients with PDoC associated with the study displayed evidence of covert consciousness. Overall, caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results. Caregivers who received results of covert consciousness were generally pleased. However, there was some variation in expectations and reactions to these data and null results.ConclusionThis study, for the first time, reveals caregiver expectations for and reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with PDoC. Caregivers understood the neuroimaging research and results, casting doubt on speculative ethical concerns regarding therapeutic misconception and false hope. However, disclosure of neuroimaging result could be improved. Pre-disclosure consultations might assist professionals in shaping caregiver expectations. Standardization of disclosure might also improve comprehension of the results.

Quality and service improvement (QSI) research employs a broad range of methods to enhance the efficiency of healthcare delivery. QSI research differs from traditional healthcare research and poses unique ethical questions. Since QSI research aims to generate knowledge to enhance quality improvement efforts, should it be considered research for regulatory purposes? Is review by a research ethics committee required? Should healthcare providers be considered research participants? If participation in QSI research entails no more than minimal risk, is consent required? The lack of consensus on answers to these questions highlights the need for ethical guidance. Three distinct approaches to classifying QSI research in accordance with existing ethical principles and regulations can be found in the literature. In the first approach, QSI research is viewed as distinct from other types of healthcare research and does not require regulation. In the second approach, QSI research falls within regulatory guidelines but is exempt from research ethics committee review. In the third approach, QSI research is deemed to be part of the learning healthcare system and, as such, is subject to a different set of ethical principles entirely. In this paper, we critically assess each of these views. While none of these approaches is entirely satisfactory, we argue that use of the ethical principles governing research provides the best means of addressing the numerous questions posed by QSI research.

In this issue of JME, Watson et al call for research evaluation of government health programmes and identify ethical guidance, including the Ottawa Statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomised trials, as a hindrance. While cluster randomised trials of health programmes as a whole should be evaluated by research ethics committees (RECs), Watson et al argue that the health programme per se is not within the researcher’s control or responsibility and, thus, is out of scope for ethics review. We argue that this view is wrong. The scope of research ethics review is not defined by researcher control or responsibility, but rather by the protection of research participants. And the randomised evaluation of health programmes impacts the liberty and welfare interests of participants insofar as they may be exposed to a harmful programme or denied access to a beneficial one. Further, Watson et al’s claim that ‘study programmes … would occur whether or not there were any … research activities’ is incorrect in the case of cluster randomised designs. In a cluster randomised trial, the government does not implement a programme as usual. Rather, researchers collaborate with the government to randomise clusters to intervention or control conditions in order to rigorously evaluate the programme. As a result, equipoise issues are triggered that must be addressed by the REC.