Civil society organizations (CSOs) have significantly impacted on the politics of health research and the field of bioethics. In the global HIV epidemic, CSOs have served a pivotal stakeholder role. The dire need for development of new prevention technologies has raised critical challenges for the ethical engagement of community stakeholders in HIV research. This study explored the perspectives of CSO representatives involved in HIV prevention trials (HPTs) on the impact of premature trial closures on stakeholder engagement. Fourteen respondents from South (...) African and international CSOs representing activist and advocacy groups, community mobilisation initiatives, and human and legal rights groups were purposively sampled based on involvement in HPTs. Interviews were conducted from February-May 2010. Descriptive analysis was undertaken across interviews and key themes were developed inductively. CSO representatives largely described positive outcomes of recent microbicide and HIV vaccine trial terminations, particularly in South Africa, which they attributed to improvements in stakeholder engagement. Ongoing challenges to community engagement included the need for principled justifications for selective stakeholder engagement at strategic time-points, as well as the need for legitimate alternatives to CABs as mechanisms for engagement. Key issues for CSOs in relation to research were also raised. (shrink)

Background South Africa is likely to be the first country in the world to host an adolescent HIV vaccine trial. Adolescents may be enrolled in late 2007. In the development and review of adolescent HIV vaccine trial protocols there are many complexities to consider, and much work to be done if these important trials are to become a reality. Discussion This article sets out essential requirements for the lawful conduct of adolescent research in South Africa including compliance with consent requirements, (...) child protection laws, and processes for the ethical and regulatory approval of research. Summary This article outlines likely complexities for researchers and research ethics committees, including determining that trial interventions meet current risk standards for child research. Explicit recommendations are made for role-players in other jurisdictions who may also be planning such trials. This article concludes with concrete steps for implementing these important trials in South Africa and other jurisdictions, including planning for consent processes; delineating privacy rights; compiling information necessary for ethics committees to assess risks to child participants; training trial site staff to recognize when disclosures trig mandatory reporting response; networking among relevant ethics commitees; and lobbying the National Regulatory Authority for guidance. (shrink)

There is little published literature on the ethical concerns of stakeholders in HIV vaccine trials. This study explored the ethical challenges identified by various stakeholders, through an open-ended, in-depth approach. While the few previous studies have been largely quantitative, respondents in this study had the opportunity to spontaneously identify the issues that they perceived to be of priority concern in the South African context. Stakeholders spontaneously identified the following as ethical priorities: informed consent, social harms, collaborative relationships between research stakeholders, (...) the participation of children and adolescents, access to treatment for participants who become infected with HIV, physical harms, fair participant and community selection, confidentiality, benefits, and payment. While there is some speculation that research in developing countries poses special ethical challenges, overall no issues were identified that have not been anticipated in international guidance, literature and popular frameworks. However, the South African context affords a distinctive gloss to these expected issues; for example, respondents were concerned that the predominant selection of black participants may perpetuate racist practices of apartheid. Stakeholders should be aware of contextual factors impacting on the implementation of ethical principles. We make a series of recommendations for South African trials, including amendments to the ethical-legal framework and research policies, and, for further research. (shrink)

South Africa is a major hub of HIV prevention trials, with plans for a licensure trial to start in 2015. The appropriate standards of care and of prevention in HIV vaccine trials are complex and debated issues and ethical guidelines offer some direction. However, there has been limited empirical exploration of South African stakeholders’ perspectives on ethical guidance related to prevention and care in HIV vaccine trials.

Civil society organizations (CSOs) have significantly impacted on the politics of health research and the field of bioethics. In the global HIV epidemic, CSOs have served a pivotal stakeholder role. The dire need for development of new prevention technologies has raised critical challenges for the ethical engagement of community stakeholders in HIV research. This study explored the perspectives of CSO representatives involved in HIV prevention trials (HPTs) on the impact of premature trial closures on stakeholder engagement. Fourteen respondents from South (...) African and international CSOs representing activist and advocacy groups, community mobilisation initiatives, and human and legal rights groups were purposively sampled based on involvement in HPTs. Interviews were conducted from February‐May 2010. Descriptive analysis was undertaken across interviews and key themes were developed inductively. CSO representatives largely described positive outcomes of recent microbicide and HIV vaccine trial terminations, particularly in South Africa, which they attributed to improvements in stakeholder engagement. Ongoing challenges to community engagement included the need for principled justifications for selective stakeholder engagement at strategic time‐points, as well as the need for legitimate alternatives to CABs as mechanisms for engagement. Key issues for CSOs in relation to research were also raised. (shrink)

This article reports on qualitative research conducted in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, among researchers and gate-keepers of health facilities in the province. Results suggest disparate but not irreconcilable perceptions of the social value of research in provincial health facilities. This study found that researchers tended to emphasize the contribution of research to the generation of knowledge and to the health of future patients while gate-keepers of health facilities tended to emphasize its contribution to the healthcare system and to current patients. Furthermore, (...) relations between research stakeholders were perceived to be somewhat fragile, making it difficult for stakeholders to achieve consensus about the social value of research, as well as on ways to maximize value. Interventions to negotiate a shared perspective on the social value of research would appear to be warranted, and the findings of this study suggest some focus areas for such intervention. (shrink)

Some participants will get HIV-infected in HIV prevention trials, despite risk reduction measures. The subsequent treatment responsibilities of sponsor-investigators have been widely debated, especially where access to antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not available. In this paper, we explore two accounts of beneficence to establish whether they can shed light on sponsor-investigator responsibilities. We find the notion of general beneficence helpful insofar as it clarifies that some beneficent actions will be obligatory where they can be dispensed without scuppering the trial. We (...) find the notion of specific beneficence helpful insofar as it directs investigators to attend to the needs of trial participants; however the range of interventions that could be provided remains unhelpfully broad. We then examine accounts of the investigator-participant relationship to narrow the range of interventions that investigators should provide, concluding that health-care, and HIV infection, are appropriate foci. We conclude that when investigators are able to meet the ART needs of their participants (e.g. referral, assisted referral or direct provision) without sacrificing trial quality, they must do so. However, there is little of this explicit direction to be found in the account of specific beneficence itself, but rather it is found in accounts of the relationship that are compatible with beneficence. (shrink)

Access to treatment, in HIV vaccine trials (HVTs), remains ethically controversial. In most prevention trials, including in South Africa, participants who seroconvert are referred to publicly funded programmes for treatment. This strategy is problematic when there is inadequate and uneven access to public sector antiretroviral therapy (ART) and support resources. The responsibilities, if any, of researchers, sponsors and public health authorities involved in HVTs has been hotly debated among academics, scholars, representatives of international organizations and sponsors. However, there is little (...) published on community perceptions. Recent guidance asserts that communities should make inputs into treatment and care decisions. This qualitative study explored a South African community's perceptions of who should provide what to HVT participants as well as how and why this should be done. Twenty-nine adults working at or attending five primary health care clinics in two rural areas in KwaZulu-Natal participated in in-depth interviews. Respondents expressed that researchers should ‘help participants to access’ treatment and care ‘because they are in a position to do so’ and ‘are in a relationship with’ trial participants. Respondents suggested that researchers could help by ‘facilitating referral’ until such time that participants can access care and treatment on their own. We highlight a series of implications for researchers in HVTs, including their need to be aware of prospective participants' considerable trust in and respect for researchers, the responsibility that this places on them, and the need for clear communication with communities so as not to erode community trust. (shrink)

The American Journal of Bioethics, Volume 11, Issue 6, Page 21-22, June 2011.