[A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials]. / Définition d'un jeu universel de critères de décision de base pour les essais cliniques sur les morsures de serpent.

Background: Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. Method: A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Results: Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials: mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. Conclusion: This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings.

A global core outcome measurement set for snakebite clinical trials.

Snakebite clinical trials have often used heterogeneous outcome measures and there is an urgent need for standardisation. A globally representative group of key stakeholders came together to reach consensus on a globally relevant set of core outcome measurements. Outcome domains and outcome measurement instruments were identified through searching the literature and a systematic review of snakebite clinical trials. Outcome domains were shortlisted by use of a questionnaire and consensus was reached among stakeholders and the patient group through facilitated discussions and voting. Five universal core outcome measures should be included in all future snakebite clinical trials-mortality, WHO disability assessment scale, patient-specific functional scale, acute allergic reaction by Brown criteria, and serum sickness by formal criteria. Additional syndrome-specific core outcome measures should be used depending on the biting species. This core outcome measurement set provides global standardisation, supports the priorities of patients and clinicians, enables meta-analysis, and is appropriate for use in low-income and middle-income settings.

Undertaking Community Engagement for a Controlled Human Malaria Infection Study in Kenya: Approaches and Lessons Learnt.

Human infection studies (HIS) involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with disease-causing pathogens under controlled conditions. These studies are "controlled" by way of using specific types of pathogens, including dose, and the availability of emergency medical facilities to research volunteers. Most HIS involve diseases whose treatment is known and are done to accelerate the development of novel therapeutics such as vaccines, to address emerging and existing infectious diseases. Traditionally, HIS have been conducted primarily in high-income countries (HICs) but are now increasingly being conducted in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). In LMICs settings, HIS are likely to raise concerns among various stakeholders including participating populations and regulatory bodies, that are unfamiliar with this type of research. Deliberately infecting a healthy individual with a disease-causing pathogen seems to go against the normal practice of medicine of "do no harm". Such types of studies can give rise to increased rumors and jeopardize research participation in study activities, including non-HIS research. Community engagement can be one approach to address particular issues that HIS studies raise through meaningfully engaging with communities, where views and voices inform the conduct of HIS studies. In addition, engagement can inform the ethical conduct and acceptability of HIS studies in LMICs settings and provide opportunities for sharing information, listening to, and responding to concerns and views from potential participants, and the larger community in which the study would be conducted. Despite community engagement being an important aspect to consider, very few published and gray literature cover the types of approaches that have been used, and lessons learnt in engagement for HIS. This article outlinesthe community engagement approaches that were used to engage stakeholders and communities for malaria HIS-controlled human malaria infection (CHMI), undertaken in Kilifi, Kenya. It outlines the engagement activities across the research cycle, from activities conducted during protocol development, to planning, and implementation of the study. We discuss the challenges experienced, lessons learnt, and provide some recommendations for engagement around HIS.

Always leave the audience wanting more: An entertaining approach to stimulate engagement with health research among publics in coastal Kenya through 'Magnet Theatre'.

Background: Magnet Theatre (MT), a form of participatory community theatre, is one of several public engagement approaches used to facilitate engagement between KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) researchers and public audiences in Coastal Kenya. We describe how we used MT as an entertaining forum where audiences learn about research, and where researchers learn about how the public views research. Methods: Drama scripts depicting community interaction with different aspects of research were developed iteratively with research staff, a theatre company and community members. Six fortnightly theatre outreaches per site over two months, attracting a total of 1454 audience members were held in Mida, a rural village 30 km north of Kilifi; and in Mtwapa, a peri-urban town 45 km to the south. Audiences were presented with dramatized health research-related dilemmas and subsequently invited to enact their responses. Evaluation comprised, notes and observations from meetings, rehearsals and outreaches, transcripts from a review workshop with repeat audience members (n=21), a reflection meeting with KWTRP engagement staff (n=12), and a group discussion with the theatre company (n=9). Discussions were recorded, transcribed, translated to English and analysed using thematic approach. Results: Despite being costly in terms of time and expense, we argue that MT in public spaces can assist audience members to navigate 'border-crossings' between everyday contexts and scientific/research concepts. This can enable audiences to share their views and concerns and enact their responses to research-related dilemmas. Conclusions: While reporting on MT's successes, drawing from literature on rumours, we acknowledge the limitations of individual engagement activities in providing long-term solutions to address alternative interpretations and rumours about research, in the context of local and global inequities. MT, however, presents an opportunity for researchers to express respect to public audiences through making research more accessible and providing opportunities to listen to public views and concerns.

Kenyan health stakeholder views on individual consent, general notification and governance processes for the re-use of hospital inpatient data to support learning on healthcare systems.

BACKGROUND: Increasing adoption of electronic health records in hospitals provides new opportunities for patient data to support public health advances. Such learning healthcare models have generated ethical debate in high-income countries, including on the role of patient and public consent and engagement. Increasing use of electronic health records in low-middle income countries offers important potential to fast-track healthcare improvements in these settings, where a disproportionate burden of global morbidity occurs. Core ethical issues have been raised around the role and form of information sharing processes for learning healthcare systems, including individual consent and individual and public general notification processes, but little research has focused on this perspective in low-middle income countries. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study on the role of information sharing and governance processes for inpatient data re-use, using in-depth interviews with 34 health stakeholders at two public hospitals on the Kenyan coast, including health managers, providers and researchers. Data were collected between March and July 2016 and analysed using a framework approach, with Nvivo 10 software to support data management. RESULTS: Most forms of clinical data re-use were seen as an important public health good. Individual consent and general notification processes were often argued as important, but contingent on interrelated influences of the type of data, use and secondary user. Underlying concerns were linked to issues of patient privacy and autonomy; perceived risks to trust in health systems; and fairness in how data would be used, particularly for non-public sector re-users. Support for engagement often turned on the anticipated outcomes of information-sharing processes, as building or undermining trust in healthcare systems. CONCLUSIONS: As reported in high income countries, learning healthcare systems in low-middle counties may generate a core ethical tension between supporting a public good and respecting patient autonomy and privacy, with the maintenance of public trust acting as a core requirement. While more evidence is needed on patient and public perspectives on learning healthcare activities, greater collaboration between public health and research governance systems is likely to support the development of efficient and locally responsive learning healthcare activities in LMICs.

Research Stakeholders' Views on Benefits and Challenges for Public Health Research Data Sharing in Kenya: The Importance of Trust and Social Relations.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition of the importance of sharing research data within the international scientific community, but also of the ethical and social challenges this presents, particularly in the context of structural inequities and varied capacity in international research. Public involvement is essential to building locally responsive research policies, including on data sharing, but little research has involved stakeholders from low-to-middle income countries. METHODS: Between January and June 2014, a qualitative study was conducted in Kenya involving sixty stakeholders with varying experiences of research in a deliberative process to explore views on benefits and challenges in research data sharing. In-depth interviews and extended small group discussions based on information sharing and facilitated debate were used to collect data. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis, and charting flow and dynamics in debates. FINDINGS: The findings highlight both the opportunities and challenges of communicating about this complex and relatively novel topic for many stakeholders. For more and less research-experienced stakeholders, ethical research data sharing is likely to rest on the development and implementation of appropriate trust-building processes, linked to local perceptions of benefits and challenges. The central nature of trust is underpinned by uncertainties around who might request what data, for what purpose and when. Key benefits perceived in this consultation were concerned with the promotion of public health through science, with legitimate beneficiaries defined differently by different groups. Important challenges were risks to the interests of study participants, communities and originating researchers through stigmatisation, loss of privacy, impacting autonomy and unfair competition, including through forms of intentional and unintentional 'misuse' of data. Risks were also seen for science. DISCUSSION: Given background structural inequities in much international research, building trust in this low-to-middle income setting includes ensuring that the interests of study participants, primary communities and originating researchers will be promoted as far as possible, as well as protected. Important ways of building trust in data sharing include involving the public in policy development and implementation, promoting scientific collaborations around data sharing and building close partnerships between researchers and government health authorities to provide checks and balances on data sharing, and promote near and long-term translational benefits.

Involving Research Stakeholders in Developing Policy on Sharing Public Health Research Data in Kenya: Views on Fair Process for Informed Consent, Access Oversight, and Community Engagement.

Increased global sharing of public health research data has potential to advance scientific progress but may present challenges to the interests of research stakeholders, particularly in low-to-middle income countries. Policies for data sharing should be responsive to public views, but there is little evidence of the systematic study of these from low-income countries. This qualitative study explored views on fair data-sharing processes among 60 stakeholders in Kenya with varying research experience, using a deliberative approach. Stakeholders' attitudes were informed by perceptions of benefit and concerns for research data sharing, including risks of stigmatization, loss of privacy, and undermining scientific careers and validity, reported in detail elsewhere. In this article, we discuss institutional trust-building processes seen as central to perceptions of fairness in sharing research data in this setting, including forms of community involvement, individual prior awareness and agreement to data sharing, independence and accountability of governance mechanisms, and operating under a national framework.

Benefits in cash or in kind? A community consultation on types of benefits in health research on the Kenyan Coast.

BACKGROUND: Providing benefits and payments to participants in health research, either in cash or in kind, is a common but ethically controversial practice. While much literature has concentrated on appropriate levels of benefits or payments, this paper focuses on less well explored ethical issues around the nature of study benefits, drawing on views of community members living close to an international health research centre in Kenya. METHODS: The consultation, including 90 residents purposively chosen to reflect diversity, used a two-stage deliberative process. Five half-day workshops were each followed by between two and four small group discussions, within a two week period (total 16 groups). During workshops and small groups, facilitators used participatory methods to share information, and promote reflection and debate on ethical issues around types of benefits, including cash, goods, medical and community benefits. Data from workshop and field notes, and voice recordings of small group discussions, were managed using Nvivo 10 and analysed using a Framework Analysis approach. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The methods generated in-depth discussion with high levels of engagement. Particularly for the most-poor, under-compensation of time in research carries risks of serious harm. Cash payments may best support compensation of costs experienced; while highly valued, goods and medical benefits may be more appropriate as an 'appreciation' or incentive for participation. Community benefits were seen as important in supporting but not replacing individual-level benefits, and in building trust in researcher-community relations. Cash payments were seen to have higher risks of undue inducement, commercialising relationships and generating family conflicts than other benefits, particularly where payments are high. Researchers should consider and account for burdens families may experience when children are involved in research. Careful context-specific research planning and skilled and consistent communication about study benefits and payments are important, including in mitigating potential negative effects.

What are fair study benefits in international health research? Consulting community members in Kenya.

BACKGROUND: Planning study benefits and payments for participants in international health research in low- income settings can be a difficult and controversial process, with particular challenges in balancing risks of undue inducement and exploitation and understanding how researchers should take account of background inequities. At an international health research programme in Kenya, this study aimed to map local residents' informed and reasoned views on the effects of different levels of study benefits and payments to inform local policy and wider debates in international research. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a relatively novel two-stage process community consultation approach, five participatory workshops involving 90 local residents from diverse constituencies were followed by 15 small group discussions, with components of information-sharing, deliberation and reflection to situate normative reasoning within debates. Framework Analysis drew inductively and deductively on voice-recorded discussions and field notes supported by Nvivo 10 software, and the international research ethics literature. Community members' views on study benefits and payments were diverse, with complex contextual influences and interplay between risks of giving 'too many' and 'too few' benefits, including the role of cash. While recognising important risks for free choice, research relationships and community values in giving 'too many', the greatest concerns were risks of unfairness in giving 'too few' benefits, given difficulties in assessing indirect costs of participation and the serious consequences for families of underestimation, related to perceptions of researchers' responsibilities. CONCLUSIONS: Providing benefits and payments to participants in international research in low-income settings is an essential means by which researchers meet individual-level and structural forms of ethical responsibilities, but understanding how this can be achieved requires a careful account of social realities and local judgment. Concerns about undue inducement in low-income communities may often be misplaced; we argue that greater attention should be placed on avoiding unfairness, particularly for the most-poor.

Promoting research integrity in Africa: an African voice of concern on research misconduct and the way forward.

African researchers and their collaborators have been making significant contributions to useful research findings and discoveries in Africa. Despite evidence of scientific misconduct even in heavily regulated research environments, there is little documented information that supports prevalence of research misconduct in Africa. Available literature on research misconduct has focused on the developed world, where credible research integrity systems are already in place. Public attention to research misconduct has lately increased, calling for attention to weaknesses in current research policies and regulatory frameworks. Africa needs policies, structural and governance systems that promote responsible conduct of research. To begin to offset this relative lack of documented evidence of research misconduct, contributors working in various research institutions from nine African countries agreed to share their experiences to highlight problems and explore the need to identify strategies to promote research integrity in the African continent. The experiences shared include anecdotal but reliable accounts of previously undocumented research misconduct, including some 'normal misbehavior' of frontline staff in those countries. Two broad approaches to foster greater research integrity are proposed including promotion of institutional and individual capacity building to instil a culture of responsible research conduct in existing and upcoming research scientist and developing deterrent and corrective policies to minimize research misconduct and other questionable research practices. By sharing these experiences and through the strategies proposed, the authors hope to limit the level of research misconduct and promote research integrity in Africa.