Clinical Ethics Committees in Africa: lost in the shadow of RECs/IRBs?
Africa
Clinical ethics
Clinical ethics committees
Clinical ethics consultation service
Developing countries
Dilemma
Ethics
Journal
BMC medical ethics
ISSN: 1472-6939
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Ethics
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088680
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 11 2020
18 11 2020
Historique:
received:
24
07
2020
accepted:
05
11
2020
entrez:
19
11
2020
pubmed:
20
11
2020
medline:
15
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are well established at healthcare institutions in resource-rich countries. However, there is limited information on established CECs in resource poor countries, especially in Africa. This study aimed to establish baseline data regarding existing formal CECs in Africa to raise awareness of and to encourage the establishment of CECs or Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CESs) on the continent. A descriptive study was undertaken using an online questionnaire via SunSurveys to survey healthcare professionals and bioethicists in Africa. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and Fischer's exact test was applied to determine associations. Texts from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed. In total 109 participants from 37 African countries completed the survey in December 2019. A significant association was found between participants' bioethics qualification or training and involvement in clinical ethics (p = 0.005). All participants were familiar with Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and initially conflated RECs with CECs. When CECs were explained in detail, approximately 85.3% reported that they had no formal CECs in their institutions. The constraints to developing CECs included lack of training, limited resources, and lack of awareness of CECs. However, the majority of participants (81.7%) were interested in establishing CECs. Participants listed assistance required in establishing CECs including funding, resources, capacity building and collaboration with other known CECs. The results do not reflect CECs established since the onset of COVID-19 in Africa. This study provides a first look into CECs in Africa and found very few formal CECs on the continent indicating an urgent need for the establishment of CECs or CESs in Africa. While the majority of healthcare professionals and bioethicists are aware of ethical dilemmas in healthcare, the concept of formal CECs is foreign. This study served to raise awareness of CECs. Research ethics and RECs overshadow CECs in Africa because international funders from the global north support capacity development in research ethics and establish RECs to approve the research they fund in Africa. Raising awareness via educational opportunities, research and conferences about CECs and their role in improving the quality of health care in Africa is sorely needed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Clinical Ethics Committees (CECs) are well established at healthcare institutions in resource-rich countries. However, there is limited information on established CECs in resource poor countries, especially in Africa. This study aimed to establish baseline data regarding existing formal CECs in Africa to raise awareness of and to encourage the establishment of CECs or Clinical Ethics Consultation Services (CESs) on the continent.
METHODS
A descriptive study was undertaken using an online questionnaire via SunSurveys to survey healthcare professionals and bioethicists in Africa. Data were subjected to descriptive analysis and Fischer's exact test was applied to determine associations. Texts from the open-ended questions were thematically analysed.
RESULTS
In total 109 participants from 37 African countries completed the survey in December 2019. A significant association was found between participants' bioethics qualification or training and involvement in clinical ethics (p = 0.005). All participants were familiar with Research Ethics Committees (RECs), and initially conflated RECs with CECs. When CECs were explained in detail, approximately 85.3% reported that they had no formal CECs in their institutions. The constraints to developing CECs included lack of training, limited resources, and lack of awareness of CECs. However, the majority of participants (81.7%) were interested in establishing CECs. Participants listed assistance required in establishing CECs including funding, resources, capacity building and collaboration with other known CECs. The results do not reflect CECs established since the onset of COVID-19 in Africa.
CONCLUSIONS
This study provides a first look into CECs in Africa and found very few formal CECs on the continent indicating an urgent need for the establishment of CECs or CESs in Africa. While the majority of healthcare professionals and bioethicists are aware of ethical dilemmas in healthcare, the concept of formal CECs is foreign. This study served to raise awareness of CECs. Research ethics and RECs overshadow CECs in Africa because international funders from the global north support capacity development in research ethics and establish RECs to approve the research they fund in Africa. Raising awareness via educational opportunities, research and conferences about CECs and their role in improving the quality of health care in Africa is sorely needed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33208150
doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00559-2
pii: 10.1186/s12910-020-00559-2
pmc: PMC7672173
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Subventions
Organisme : Universiteit Stellenbosch
ID : IN-1160267
Pays : International
Références
Am J Bioeth. 2014;14(1):28-30
pubmed: 24422926
Handb Clin Neurol. 2013;118:25-34
pubmed: 24182365
J Med Ethics. 2018 Feb;44(2):91-96
pubmed: 28780527
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Sep 13;20(1):63
pubmed: 31519172
HEC Forum. 2006 Dec;18(4):305-18
pubmed: 17717755
J Med Ethics Hist Med. 2016 Dec 18;9:17
pubmed: 28523118
BMC Med Ethics. 2016 Nov 8;17(1):68
pubmed: 27821141
BMC Med Ethics. 2019 Dec 19;20(1):97
pubmed: 31856803
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Dec 1;18(1):68
pubmed: 29191186
J Med Ethics. 2020 Jan;46(1):36-42
pubmed: 31527139
Arch Surg. 2000 Jan;135(1):22-5
pubmed: 10636342
Adv Neonatal Care. 2014 Dec;14(6):398-402
pubmed: 25422925
J Med Ethics. 2020 Feb;46(2):66-70
pubmed: 31488518
Afr Health Sci. 2015 Jun;15(2):673-81
pubmed: 26124819
BMJ. 2004 Apr 17;328(7445):950-2
pubmed: 15087349
Dev World Bioeth. 2018 Dec;18(4):341-348
pubmed: 28470868
Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2013 Apr;22(2):216-26
pubmed: 23507183
PLoS One. 2015 Jul 10;10(7):e0132374
pubmed: 26161655
BMJ. 2000 Sep 16;321(7262):649-50
pubmed: 10987750
AMA J Ethics. 2016 May 01;18(5):534-9
pubmed: 27213885
Dev World Bioeth. 2020 Jun;20(2):69-73
pubmed: 32282974
Pediatrics. 2019 May;143(5):
pubmed: 31036674
Sci Eng Ethics. 2020 Apr;26(2):833-850
pubmed: 31587148
BMC Med Ethics. 2001;2:E1
pubmed: 11346456
HEC Forum. 1996 Oct;8(5):290-300
pubmed: 10164104
BMJ. 1995 Sep 9;311(7006):667-9
pubmed: 7549638