Co-design and implementation research: challenges and solutions for ethics committees

BMC Medical Ethics

Trisha Greenhalgh³  Claire Jackson²  Felicity Goodyear-Smith¹ 

[1] Department of General Practice & Primary Health Care, University of Auckland, Auckland, 920919, PB, New Zealand;Centre for Primary Care Reform Research Excellence, School of Medicine, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia;Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

关键词: Intervention studies;    Ethics committee;    Implementation research;    Community-based participatory research;    Co-design;   

Others  :  1233973
DOI  :  10.1186/s12910-015-0072-2

 received in 2015-09-20, accepted in 2015-11-12,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Implementation science research, especially when using participatory and co-design approaches, raises unique challenges for research ethics committees. Such challenges may be poorly addressed by approval and governance mechanisms that were developed for more traditional research approaches such as randomised controlled trials.

Discussion

Implementation science commonly involves the partnership of researchers and stakeholders, attempting to understand and encourage uptake of completed or piloted research. A co-creation approach involves collaboration between researchers and end users from the onset, in question framing, research design and delivery, and influencing strategy, with implementation and broader dissemination strategies part of its design from gestation. A defining feature of co-creation is its emergent and adaptive nature, making detailed pre-specification of interventions and outcome measures impossible. This methodology sits oddly with ethics committee protocols that require precise pre-definition of interventions, mode of delivery, outcome measurements, and the role of study participants. But the strict (and, some would say, inflexible) requirements of ethics committees were developed for a purpose – to protect participants from harm and help ensure the rigour and transparency of studies. We propose some guiding principles to help square this circle. First, ethics committees should acknowledge and celebrate the diversity of research approaches, both formally (through training) and informally (by promoting debate and discussion); without active support, their members may not understand or value participatory designs. Second, ground rules should be established for co-design applications (e.g. how to judge when ‘consultation’ or ‘engagement’ becomes research) and communicated to committee members and stakeholders. Third, the benefits of power-sharing should be recognised and credit given to measures likely to support this important goal, especially in research with vulnerable communities. Co-design is considered best practice, for example, in research involving indigenous peoples in New Zealand, Australia and Canada.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Goodyear-Smith et al.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Bero LA, Grilli R, Grimshaw JM, Harvey E, Oxman AD, Thomson MA. Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. BMJ. 1998; 317(7156):465-468.
• [2]Peters DH, Adam T, Alonge O, Agyepong IA, Tran N. Implementation research: what it is and how to do it. BMJ. 2013; 347:f6753.
• [3]Edwards N, Barker PM. The importance of context in implementation research. J. Acquir. Immune Defic. Syndr. 2014; 67 Suppl 2:S157-162.
• [4]Nilsen P, Ståhl C, Roback K, Cairney P. Never the twain shall meet?-a comparison of implementation science and policy implementation research. Implement Sci. 2013; 8(1):63. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg J, Bush PL, Henderson J et al.. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012; 90(2):311-346.
• [6]Cornwall A, Jewkes R. What is participatory research? Soc. Sci. Med. 1995; 41(12):1667-1676.
• [7]Janamain T, Jackson C, Dunbar J. Co-creating value in research: stakeholders’ perspectives. Med J Aust. 2014; 201(3):S44-S46.
• [8]Ramaswamy V, Gouillart F. Building the co-creative enterprise. Harv Bus Rev. 2010; 88(10):100-109.
• [9]Wehrens R, Bekker M, Bal R. Hybrid management configurations in joint research. Sci Technol Hum Values. 2014; 39(1):6-41.
• [10]Hinchcliff R, Greenfield D, Braithwaite J. Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms. Int J Qual Health Care. 2014; 26(2):124-128.
• [11]Rycroft-Malone J, Wilkinson JE, Burton CR, Andrews G, Ariss S, Baker R et al.. Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships: a realistic evaluation of the collaborations for leadership in applied health research and care (CLAHRC). Implement Sci. 2011; 6(1):74. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Kosmala-Anderson JP, Wallace LM, Turner A, Bourne C. Self-reported effects of attending the health foundation’s co-creating health self-management programme for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in London, England. AMS. 2014; 10(4):773-781.
• [13]Whitehouse SR, Lam P-Y, Balka E, McLellan S, Deevska M, Penn D et al.. Co-creation with TickiT: designing and evaluating a clinical eHealth platform for youth. JMIR Res Protoc. 2013; 2(2):e42.
• [14]Fitzgerald L, Harvey G. Translational networks in healthcare? evidence on the design and initiation of organizational networks for knowledge mobilization. Soc Sci Med. 2015; 138:192-200.
• [15]Boyd H, McKernon S, Mullin B, Old A. Improving healthcare through the use of co-design. NZ Med J. 2012; 125(1357):76-87.
• [16]Piper D, Iedema R, Gray J, Verma R, Holmes L, Manning N. Utilizing experience-based co-design to improve the experience of patients accessing emergency departments in New South Wales public hospitals: an evaluation study. Health Serv Manag Res. 2012; 25(4):162-172.
• [17]Eccles MP, Weijer C, Mittman B. Requirements for ethics committee review for studies submitted to implementation science. Implement Sci. 2011; 6:32. BioMed Central Full Text
• [18]Jones JH. Bad blood: the tuskeegee syphilis experiment: Simon and Schuster. 1993.
• [19]Shuster E. Fifty years later: the significance of the Nuremberg code. N Engl J Med. 1997; 337(20):1436-1440.
• [20]World medical association declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013; 310(20):2191.
• [21]Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences and World Health Organisation: International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. Accessed 27.7.15 on http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf. Geneva: CIMS and WHO; 2002.
• [22]Berge E, Ford GA, Bath PM, Stapf C, Worp HB, Demotes J et al.. Regulation and governance of multinational drug trials in stroke: barriers and possibilities. Int. J. Stroke. 2015; 10(3):425-428.
• [23]Dixon-Woods M, Ashcroft RE. Regulation and the social licence for medical research. Med Health Care Philos. 2008; 11(4):381-391.
• [24]Laine C, Horton R, DeAngelis CD, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Godlee F et al.. Clinical trial registration—looking back and moving ahead. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(26):2734-2736.
• [25]Chan A-W, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K et al.. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(3):200-207.
• [26]Brugge D, Kole A. A case study of community-based participatory research ethics: the healthy public housing initiative. Sci Eng Ethic. 2003; 9(4):485-501.
• [27]Cross J, Pickering K, Hickey M: Community-based participatory research, ethics, and institutional review boards: untying a Gordian knot. Critical Sociology 2014:1–20. doi:10.1177/0896920513512696
• [28]McNutty AN, Banks S, Armstrong A, Carter K, Graham H, Hayward P et al.. Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemp Soc Sci. 2013; 8(3):263-277.
• [29]Druml C, Wolzt M, Pleiner J, Singer EA. Research ethics committees in Europe: trials and tribulations. Intensive Care Med. 2009; 35(9):1636-1640.
• [30]Boser S. Power, ethics, and the IRB dissonance over human participant review of participatory research. Qual Inq. 2007; 13(8):1060-1074.
• [31]INVOLVE: Patient and public involvement in research and research ethics committee review. http://www. invo.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/INVOLVENRESfinalStatement310309.pdf webcite
• [32]Macaulay AC, Delormier T, McComber AM, Cross EJ, Potvin LP, Paradis G et al.. Participatory research with native community of Kahnawake creates innovative code of research ethics. Can J Public Health. 1998; 89(2):105-108.
• [33]Hawe P, Shiell A, Riley T. Complex interventions: how “out of control” can a randomised controlled trial be? BMJ. 2004; 328(7455):1561.
• [34]Jones R, Crengle S, McCreanor T. How tikanga guides and protects the research process. Soc Policy J N Z. 2006; 29(Nov):60-77.
• [35]Guidelines for researchers on health research involving māori. HRC, Wellington; 2010.
• [36]Guidelines for ethical research in Australian indigenous studies. AIATSIS, Canberra; 2012.
• [37]Research involving the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada. TCPS 2. Government of Canada, Ottawa; 2015.
• [38]Chen DT, Jones L, Gelberg L. Ethics of clinical research within a community-academic partnered participatory framework. Ethn Dis. 2006; 16(1 Suppl 1):S118-135.
• [39]Blake M. Formality and friendship: research ethics review and participatory action research. ACME: An Intl E-J for critical Geogr. 2007; 6(3):411-421.