Abstract
Introduction The rapid evolution of digital health interventions has created challenges in navigating the ethics approval process for commercial enterprises. Recognising the need for processes that balance ethical considerations with the specifics of digital health research, this study aimed to describe what happens when enterprises seek ethical review in the UK and propose strategies for a smoother process.
Methods Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on thirty-two ethics review documents (29 to an NHS Research Ethics Committee, 3 to an ethics committee at a higher education institution) submitted by digital health developers with commercial sponsors and ten semi-structured interviews with digital health enterprise representatives.
Results Ethics committees raised an average of 4.3 action points per submission. We identified five broad themes around committees’ concerns: ethical commitments in care; study design; digital health research peculiarities; data governance; document quality and completeness. Interviewees reported a range of experiences. Here, we identified six broad themes: submission and protocol revisions; the dynamic between parties; application time and procedures; acumen and practicality in digital health; support and guidance from RECs; enterprise expertise and resources.
Conclusion We suggest strategies for applicants to achieve a favourable decision, such as evidence-based study designs and participant support for better inclusion and equity, and identified specific pitfalls to avoid, such as lack of justification for data governance procedures. We recommend that UK research ethics committees provide adapted guidance and foster collaboration through open communication and mutual understanding, to facilitate a smoother approval process in digital health research.
Competing Interest Statement
KY has no conflict of interest to declare. HP is a frequent applicant to research ethics committees. He provides reviews for the UCL Institute of Health Informatics Research Ethics Committee. He supported one application used in the analysis. Since this study was conducted and independent of the study, HP has started providing consultancy for one of the enterprises interviewed in the study. He provides, has in recent years provided or is planning to provide paid expert advice on digital health evaluation for Crystallise Limited, Flo Health Inc., Prova Health, Public Health England, and Thrive Therapeutic Software Ltd. He has PhD students in the field employed by or previously employed by, and with fees paid by AstraZeneca, Patients Know Best and BetterPoints Ltd.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
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:
The study received ethical approval from the UCL Institute of Health Informatics REC (8-IHILREC).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data availability
Interview data and data not obtained by freedom of information requests is not available for secondary use.
