Rev Panam Salud Publica
December 2024
International ethical standards for research involving persons who have diminished decision-making capacity allow for delegation of the decision to participate in research to a representative who can act as a surrogate decision-maker. However, this approach has been questioned by the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), according to which all persons with disabilities, regardless of their mental or neurological condition, always have universal legal capacity to make decisions. The incompatibility between ethical standards and the CRPD is clear and impacts the conduct of research involving people with mental disabilities, which is essential for the improvement of their health and well-being.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The COVID-19 pandemic forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritize resource allocation. Most countries produced pandemic preparedness plans that guide and coordinate healthcare, including how to allocate scarce resources such as ventilators, human resources, and therapeutics. The objective of this study was to compare and contrast the extent to which established parameters for effective priority setting (PS) were incorporated into COVID-19 pandemic response planning in several countries around the world.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFGlobal health reciprocal innovation (GHRI) is a recent and more formalised approach to conducting research that recognises and develops innovations (eg, medicines, devices, methodologies) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At present, studies using GHRI most commonly adapt innovations from LMICs for use in high-income countries (HICs), although some develop innovations in LMICs and HICs. In this paper, we propose that GHRI implicitly makes two ethical commitments: (1) to promote health innovations from LMICs, especially in HICs, and (2) to conduct studies on health innovations from LMICs in equitable partnerships between investigators in LMICs and HICs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFStakeholder participation is a key component of a fair and equitable priority-setting in health. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for fair and equitable priority setting, and hence, stakeholder participation. To date, there is limited literature on stakeholder participation in the development of the pandemic plans (including the priority setting plans) that were rapidly developed during the pandemic.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: While priority setting is recognized as critical for promoting accountability and transparency in health system planning, its role in supporting rational, equitable and fair pandemic planning and responses is less well understood. This study aims to describe how priority setting was used to support planning in the initial stage of the pandemic response in a subset of countries in the Western Pacific Region (WPR).
Methods: We purposively sampled a subset of countries from WPR and undertook a critical document review of the initial national COVID-19 pandemic response plans.
Background: Despite the swift governments' response to the COVID-19 pandemic, there remains a paucity of literature assessing the degree to which; priority setting (PS) was included in the pandemic plans and the pandemic plans were publicly accessible. This paper reflects on the methods employed in a global comparative analysis of the degree to which countries integrated PS into their COVID-19 pandemic plans based on Kapiriri & Martin's framework. We also assessed if the accessibility of the plans was related to the country's transparency index.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe COVID-19 pandemic has forced governments across the world to consider how to prioritise the allocation of scarce resources. There are many tools and frameworks that have been designed to assist with the challenges of priority setting in health care. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which formal priority setting was evident in the pandemic plans produced by countries in the World Health Organisation's EURO region, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFSystematic priority setting (PS), based on explicit criteria, is thought to improve the quality and consistency of the PS decisions. Among the PS criteria, there is increased focus on the importance of equity considerations and vulnerable populations. This paper discusses the PS criteria that were included in the national COVID-19 pandemic plans, with specific focus on equity and on the vulnerable populations considered.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFWe conducted a scoping review to map and critically examine the knowledge, perceptions and utilization of generics and biosimilars, among physicians, pharmacists, patients, the general population, and other stakeholders from LAC.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Variation in priorities during pandemic planning among the federal, provincial and territorial jurisdictions are thought to have impacted Canada's ability to effectively control the spread of the COVID-19 virus, and protect the most vulnerable. The potential influence of diverse and divergent political, cultural, and behavioural factors, regarding inclusion of priority setting (PS) in pandemic preparedness planning across the country is not well understood. This study aimed to examine how the Canadian federal, provincial and territorial COVID-19 pandemic preparedness planning documents integrated PS.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The World Health Organization- South-East Asia Region (WHO-SEARO) accounted for almost 17% of all the confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19 worldwide. While the literature has documented a weak COVID-19 response in the WHO-SEARO, there has been no discussion of the degree to which this could have been influenced/ mitigated with the integration of priority setting (PS) in the region's COVID-19 response. The purpose of this paper is to describe the degree to which the COVID-19 plans from a sample of WHO-SEARO countries included priority setting.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFTo strengthen research ethics systemically, the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) devised a strategy that includes objectives and indicators to address core components of research ethics systems. We assessed 22 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean using these indicators. Most countries have adopted legal instruments to govern research with human participants and have implemented national bodies tasked with the oversight of research ethics committees.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are among those regions most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic worldwide. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained health systems in the region. In this context of severe healthcare resource constraints, there is a need for systematic priority-setting to support decision-making which ensures the best use of resources while considering the needs of the most vulnerable groups.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: An increasingly large proportion of clinical trials is being conducted at non-traditional geographic regions such as Latin America. However, concerns have been raised that hosting countries may lack adequate research regulations and that clinical trials may not address local health needs. In this context, Chile has been hosting a relatively large proportion of clinical trials and has introduced new regulatory protections.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFBackground: The use of great apes (GA) in invasive biomedical research is one of the most debated topics in animal ethics. GA are, thus far, the only animal group that has frequently been banned from invasive research; yet some believe that these bans could inaugurate a broader trend towards greater restrictions on the use of primates and other animals in research. Despite ongoing academic and policy debate on this issue, there is no comprehensive overview of the reasons advanced for or against restricting invasive research with GA.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe current COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to overwhelm the capacity of hospitals and Intensive Care Units in Chile and Latin America. Thus local authorities have an ethical obligation to be prepared by implementing pertinent measures to prevent a situation of rationing of scarce healthcare resources, and by defining ethically acceptable and socially legitimate criteria for the allocation of these resources. This paper responds to recent ethical guidelines issued by a Chilean academic institution and discusses the main moral principles for the ethical foundations of criteria for rationing during the present crisis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe global distribution of clinical trials is shifting to low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs), and adequate regulations are essential for protecting the rights and interests of research participants in these countries. However, policy-makers in LMICs can face an ethical trade-off: stringent regulatory protections for participants can lead researchers or sponsors to conduct their research elsewhere, potentially depriving the local population of the opportunity to benefit from international clinical research. In this paper, we propose a three-step ethical framework that helps policy-makers to navigate this trade-off.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCamb Q Healthc Ethics
January 2020
When prescribing a treatment, the physician should give truthful information about the likely benefits and the potential adverse effects, allowing the patient to make an autonomous decision about whether to take the treatment. However, the mere expectation of adverse effects may precipitate the corresponding symptoms. This is called "nocebo effect", which in contrast to the placebo effect, can lead to harm to the patient due to psychological factors.
View Article and Find Full Text PDF