Dataset Information

Towards a common European ethical and legal framework for conducting clinical research: the GATEKEEPER experience.

ABSTRACT: This paper examines the ethical and legal challenges encountered during the GATEKEEPER Project and how these challenges informed the development of a comprehensive framework for future Large-Scale Pilot (LSP) projects. GATEKEEPER is a LSP Project with 48 partners conducting 30 implementation studies across Europe with 50,000 target participants grouped into 9 Reference Use Cases. The project underscored the complexity of obtaining ethical approval across various jurisdictions with divergent regulations and procedures. Through a detailed analysis of the issues faced and the strategies employed to navigate these challenges, this study proposes an ethical and legal framework. This framework, derived from a comparative analysis of ethical application forms and regulations, aims to streamline the ethical approval process for future LSP research projects. By addressing the hurdles encountered in GATEKEEPER, the proposed framework offers a roadmap for more efficient and effective project management, ensuring smoother implementation of similar projects in the future.

SUBMITTER: Maccaro A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11016076 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Towards a common European ethical and legal framework for conducting clinical research: the GATEKEEPER experience.

Maccaro Alessia A Tsiompanidou Vasiliki V Piaggio Davide D Gallego Montejo Alba M AM Cea Sánchez Gloria G de Batlle Jordi J Quesada Rodriguez Adrian A Fico Giuseppe G Pecchia Leandro L

NPJ digital medicine 20240413 1

This paper examines the ethical and legal challenges encountered during the GATEKEEPER Project and how these challenges informed the development of a comprehensive framework for future Large-Scale Pilot (LSP) projects. GATEKEEPER is a LSP Project with 48 partners conducting 30 implementation studies across Europe with 50,000 target participants grouped into 9 Reference Use Cases. The project underscored the complexity of obtaining ethical approval across various jurisdictions with divergent regu ...[more]

PMID: 38615054

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The fields of stroke genomics, biobanking, and precision medicine are rapidly expanding in sub-Saharan Africa. However, the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI) of emerging neurobiobanking and genomic data resources are unclear in an emerging African scientific landscape with unique cultural, linguistic, and belief systems. Objective: This article documents capacity-building experiences of researchers during the development, pretesting, and validation of data collection instruments of the African Neurobiobank for Precision Stroke Medicine-(ELSI) Project. Methods: The African Neurobiobank for Precision Stroke Medicine-ELSI project is a transnational, multicenter project implemented across seven sites in Ghana and Nigeria. Guided by the Community-Based Participatory Research framework, we conducted three workshops with key stakeholders to review the study protocol, ensure uniformity in implementation; pretest, harmonize, and integrate context-specific feedback to ensure validity and adaptability of data collection instruments. Workshop impact was assessed using an open-ended questionnaire, which included questions on experience with participation in any of the workshops, building capacity in Genetic and Genomic Research (GGR), level of preparedness toward GGR, the genomic mini-dictionary developed by the team, and its impact in enhancing understanding in GGR. Data were analyzed qualitatively using a thematic framework approach. Results: Findings revealed the usefulness of the workshop in improving participants' knowledge and capacity toward GGR implementation. It further identified local, context-specific concerns regarding quality data collection, the need to develop culturally acceptable, genomic/biobanking data collection tools, and a mini-dictionary. Participants-reported perceptions were that the mini-dictionary enhanced understanding, participation, and data collection in GGR. Overall, participants reported increased preparedness and interest in participating in GGR. Conclusion: Capacity-building is a necessary step toward ELSI-related genomic research implementation in African countries where scholarship of ELSI of genomics research is emerging. Our findings may be useful to the design and implementation of ELSI-GGR projects in other African countries.

Project description:BackgroundSevere complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has high mortality, thought due in part to progressive bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. Treatment includes early antibiotics and operative source control. At surgery, open abdomen management with negative-peritoneal-pressure therapy (NPPT) has been hypothesized to mitigate MOF and death, although clinical equipoise for this operative approach exists. The Closed or Open after Laparotomy (COOL) study (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095) will prospectively randomize eligible patients intra-operatively to formal abdominal closure or OA with NPTT. We review the ethical basis for conducting research in SCIAS.Main bodyResearch in critically ill incapacitated patients is important to advance care. Conducting research among SCIAS is complicated due to the severity of illness including delirium, need for emergent interventions, diagnostic criteria confirmed only at laparotomy, and obtundation from anaesthesia. In other circumstances involving critically ill patients, clinical experts have worked closely with ethicists to apply principles that balance the rights of patients whilst simultaneously permitting inclusion in research. In Canada, the Tri-Council Policy Statement-2 (TCPS-2) describes six criteria that permit study enrollment and randomization in such situations: (a) serious threat to the prospective participant requires immediate intervention; (b) either no standard efficacious care exists or the research offers realistic possibility of direct benefit; (c) risks are not greater than that involved in standard care or are clearly justified by prospect for direct benefits; (d) prospective participant is unconscious or lacks capacity to understand the complexities of the research; (e) third-party authorization cannot be secured in sufficient time; and (f) no relevant prior directives are known to exist that preclude participation. TCPS-2 criteria are in principle not dissimilar to other (inter)national criteria. The COOL study will use waiver of consent to initiate enrollment and randomization, followed by surrogate or proxy consent, and finally delayed informed consent in subjects that survive and regain capacity.ConclusionsA delayed consent mechanism is a practical and ethical solution to challenges in research in SCIAS. The ultimate goal of consent is to balance respect for patient participants and to permit participation in new trials with a reasonable opportunity for improved outcome and minimal risk of harm.

Project description:IntroductionData linkage for health research purposes enables the answering of countless new research questions, is said to be cost effective and less intrusive than other means of data collection. Nevertheless, health researchers are currently dealing with a complicated, fragmented, and inconsistent regulatory landscape with regard to the processing of data, and progress in health research is hindered.AimWe designed a qualitative study to assess what different stakeholders perceive as ethical and legal obstacles to data linkage for health research purposes, and how these obstacles could be overcome.MethodsTwo focus groups and eighteen semi-structured in-depth interviews were held to collect opinions and insights of various stakeholders. An inductive thematic analysis approach was used to identify overarching themes.ResultsThis study showed that the ambiguity regarding the 'correct' interpretation of the law, the fragmentation of policies governing the processing of personal health data, and the demandingness of legal requirements are experienced as causes for the impediment of data linkage for research purposes by the participating stakeholders. To remove or reduce these obstacles authoritative interpretations of the laws and regulations governing data linkage should be issued. The participants furthermore encouraged the harmonisation of data linkage policies, as well as promoting trust and transparency and the enhancement of technical and organisational measures. Lastly, there is a demand for legislative and regulatory modifications amongst the participants.ConclusionsTo overcome the obstacles in data linkage for scientific research purposes, perhaps we should shift the focus from adapting the current laws and regulations governing data linkage, or even designing completely new laws, towards creating a more thorough understanding of the law and making better use of the flexibilities within the existing legislation. Important steps in achieving this shift could be clarification of the legal provisions governing data linkage by issuing authoritative interpretations, as well as the strengthening of ethical-legal oversight bodies.

Project description:BackgroundVulnerable groups, e.g. persons with mental illness, neurological deficits or dementia, are often excluded as participants from research projects because obtaining informed consent can be difficult and tedious. This may have the consequence that vulnerable groups benefit less from medical progress. Vulnerable persons are often supported by a legal guardian in one or more demands of their daily life. We examined the attitudes of legal guardians and legally supervised persons towards medical research and the conditions and motivations to participate in studies.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study with standardized surveys of legal guardians and legally supervised persons. Two separate questionnaires were developed for the legal guardians and the supervised persons to asses previous experiences with research projects and the reasons for participation or non-participation. The legal guardians were recruited through various guardianship organizations. The supervised persons were recruited through their legal guardian and from a previous study among psychiatric patients. The data were analysed descriptively.ResultsAlltogether, 82 legal guardians and 20 legally supervised persons could be recruited. Thereof 13 legal guardians (15.6%) and 13 legally supervised persons (65.0%) had previous experience with research projects. The majority of the guardians with experience in research projects had consented the participation of their supervised persons (n = 12 guardians, 60.0%; in total n = 16 approvals). The possible burden on the participating person was given as the most frequent reason not to participate both by the guardians (n = 44, 54.4%) and by the supervised persons (n = 3, 30.0%). The most frequent motivation to provide consent to participate in a research study was the desire to help other patients by gaining new scientific knowledge (guardians: n = 125, 78.1%; supervised persons: n = 10, 66.6%).ConclusionsOverall, an open attitude towards medical research can be observed both among legal guardians and supervised persons. Perceived risks and no sense recognized in the study are reasons for not participating in medical research projects.

Dataset Information

Towards a common European ethical and legal framework for conducting clinical research: the GATEKEEPER experience.

Publications

Towards a common European ethical and legal framework for conducting clinical research: the GATEKEEPER experience.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets