Contextual equipoise: a novel concept to inform ethical implications for implementation research in low-income and middle-income countries.

Journal: BMJ global health

Volume: 5

Issue: 12

Year of Publication: 2021

Affiliated Institutions:  Centre for Implementation Science, Department of Health Service and Population Research, King's College London, London, UK nadine.seward@kcl.ac.uk. Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Centre for Global Mental Health, King's College London, London, UK. Norwich Medical School, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of East Anglia Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Norwich, UK. Institute of Global Health, University College London, London, UK. Health Service and Population Research Department, King's College London, London, UK. King's College London, London, UK.

Abstract summary 

The call for universal health coverage requires the urgent implementation and scale-up of interventions that are known to be effective, in resource-poor settings. Achieving this objective requires high-quality implementation research (IR) that evaluates the complex phenomenon of the influence of context on the ability to effectively deliver evidence-based practice. Nevertheless, IR for global health is failing to apply a robust, theoretically driven approach, leading to ethical concerns associated with research that is not methodologically sound.Inappropriate methods are often used in IR to address and report on context. This may result in a lack in understanding of how to effectively adapt the intervention to the new setting and a lack of clarity in conceptualising whether there is sufficient evidence to generalise findings from previous IR to a new setting, or if a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is needed. Some of the ethical issues arising from this shortcoming include poor-quality research that may needlessly expose vulnerable participants to research that has not been adapted to suit local needs and priorities, and the inappropriate use of RCTs that denies participants in the control arm access to treatment that is effective within the local context.To address these concerns, we propose a complementary approach to clinical equipoise for IR, known as We discuss challenges in the evaluation of context and also with assessing the certainty of evidence to justify an RCT. Finally, we describe methods that can be applied to improve the evaluation and reporting of context and to help understand if contextual equipoise can be justified or if significant adaptations are required. We hope our analysis offers helpful insight to better understand and ensure that the ethical principle of beneficence is upheld in the real-world contexts of IR in low-resource settings.

Authors & Co-authors:  Seward Nadine N Hanlon Charlotte C Murdoch Jamie J Colbourn Tim T Prince Martin James MJ Venkatapuram Sridhar S Sevdalis Nick N

Study Outcome 

Source Link: Visit source

Statistics
Citations :  United Nations Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development, 2015. Available: http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/70/1&Lang=E
Authors :  7
Identifiers
Doi : e003456
SSN : 2059-7908
Study Population
Male,Female
Mesh Terms
Developing Countries
Other Terms
health policy;other study design;public health;randomised control trial
Study Design
Case Control Trial,Cross Sectional Study
Study Approach
Country of Study
Publication Country
England