Background: While ethicists have for many years called for human subject trial participants and, in some cases,\nlocal community members to benefit from participation in pharmaceutical and other intervention-based therapies,\nlittle is known about how these discussions are impacting the practice of research ethics boards (REBs) that grant\nethical approval to many of these studies.\nMethods: Telephone interviews were conducted with 23 REB members from across Canada, a major funder country\nfor human subject research internationally. All interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. After\ncoding, the data was analyzed to identify central themes and topics. Themes were identified, application of the themes\nwas confirmed, and these themes were then used to populate the findings of this manuscript.\nResults: Our analysis of the interviews identified two primary themes when considering what benefits are owed to\nresearch participants and their communities. 1) Most study participants felt that given that these studies are led by\npersons in the role of researcher rather than health care provider, they had a limited obligation to provide benefits to\nstudy participants. 2) These REB members were all working in Canada, a high income country where most residents\nenjoy high levels of access to health care. As a result of this context, the study participants tended to focus on ethical\nconcerns including obtaining informed consent and avoiding undue inducement to participate in research rather than\nensuring that study participants directly benefit from successful trials.\nConclusions: Research on REB members� attitudes toward what benefits are owed to study participants and\ncommunity members is needed in other countries in order to determine how context affects these attitudes.
Loading....