Abstract
Background In the course of the COVID-19 pandemic, the biomedical research community’s attempt to focus the attention on fighting COVID-19, led to several challenges within the field of research ethics. However, we know little about the practical relevance of these challenges for Research Ethics Committees (RECs).
Methods We conducted a qualitative survey across all 52 German RECs on the challenges and potential solutions with reviewing proposals for COVID-19 studies. We de-identified the answers and applied thematic text analysis for the extraction and synthesis of challenges and potential solutions that we grouped under established principles for clinical research ethics.
Results We received an overall response rate of 42%. The 22 responding RECs reported that they had assessed a total of 441 study proposals on COVID-19 until 21 April 2020. For the review of these proposals the RECs indicated a broad spectrum of challenges regarding i) social value (e.g. lack of coordination), ii) scientific validity (e.g. provisional study planning), iii) favourable risk-benefit ratio (e.g. difficult benefit assessment), iv) informed consent (e.g. strict isolation measures), v) independent review (e.g. lack of time), vi) fair selection of trial participants (e.g. inclusion of vulnerable groups), and vii) respect for study participants (e.g. data security). Mentioned solutions ranged from improved local/national coordination, over guidance on modified consent procedures, to priority setting across clinical studies.
Conclusions RECs are facing a broad spectrum of pressing challenges in reviewing COVID-19 studies. Some challenges for consent procedures are well known from research in intensive care settings but are further aggravated by infection measures. Other challenges such as reviewing several clinical studies at the same time that potentially compete for the recruitment of in-house COVID-19 patients are unique to the current situation. For some of the challenges the proposed solutions in our survey could relatively easy be translated into practice. Others need further conceptual and empirical research. Our findings together with the increasing body of literature on COVID-19 research ethics, and further stakeholder engagement should inform the development of hands-on guidance for researchers, funders, RECs, and further oversight bodies.
Competing Interest Statement
DS is a member of the Charité Research Ethics Committee. JH is the head of Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany and working for Research Ethics Committees. KK is head of office at the Association of Medical Ethics Committees in Germany.
Funding Statement
The project received intramural funding from the Berlin Institute of Health (BIH). The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, and interpretation, or in writing the manuscript.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This survey did not ask for personal data ("human data") but for information about legal institutions ("institutional data"). Thus neither the EU GDPR nor the German Data Protection Act applies. Furthermore, there is no legal basis or ethics guidance in Germany to get the opinion of an Ethics Committee for this assessment of institutional data. In Germany freedom of research is protected by the Constitution (Base Law).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study may be available from the corresponding author on reasonable request. There are legal constraints that prohibit us from making all data publicly available, e.g., they are containing information that could compromise the de-identification of the participating RECs.
