Data-sharing is a desired default in the field of public health and a source of much ethical deliberation. Sharing data potentially contributes the largest, most efficient source of scientific data, but is fraught with contextual challenges which make stakeholders, particularly those in under-resourced contexts hesitant or slow to share. Relatively little empirical research has engaged stakeholders in discussing the issue. This study sought to explore relevant experiences, contextual, and subjective explanations around the topic to provide a rich and detailed presentation of what it means to different stakeholders and contexts to share data and how that can guide practice and ethical guidance. A qualitative design involving interviews was undertaken with professionals working in public health institutions endowed with data (HDSS), ethics committees, and advisory agencies which help shape health research in Africa. A descriptive form of thematic analysis was used to summarize results into six key themes: (1) The role of HDSSs in research using public health data and data-sharing; (2) Ownership and funding are critical factors influencing data-sharing; (3) Other factors discourage data-sharing; (4) Promoting and sustaining data-sharing; (5) Ethical guidance structures; and (6) Establishing effective guidance. The themes reveal factors regarding the willingness or not to share and an intricate ethical system that current discourse could reflect. Many of the concerns resonate with the literature, but a whole other gamut of people and process issues; commitments, investments, careers, and the right ethical guidance are needed to realize a sustainable goal of reaching 'share' as a default.

A powerful feature of global health research is data‐sharing with regions which bear the heaviest burden of disease. It offers novel opportunities for aggregating data to address critical global health challenges in ways higher than relying on individual studies. Yet there exist important stratifiers of the capacity to share data, particularly across the Global North‐South divide. Systemic challenges that characterize sub‐Saharan Africa and disadvantage the region's scientific productivity threaten the burgeoning data‐sharing culture too. Like all endeavors requiring equal commitments under unequal circumstances, a strong ethical impetus is needed to help reduce inequities and imbalances to encourage adherence. This article discusses mandatory data‐sharing in relation to peculiar challenges faced by sub‐Saharan African scientists to suggest ethical principles for rethinking and reframing solutions. We propose six principles which mirror guidelines from the Institute of Medicine and encapsulate principles from the Emanuel Framework, Nairobi Data Sharing Principles, and the COHRED guidelines.

BackgroundA review of literature published a decade ago noted a significant increase in empirical papers across nine bioethics journals. This study provides an update on the presence of empirical papers in the same nine journals. It first evaluates whether the empirical trend is continuing as noted in the previous study, and second, how it is changing, that is, what are the characteristics of the empirical works published in these nine bioethics journals.MethodA review of the same nine journals (Bioethics; Journal of Medical Ethics; Journal of Clinical Ethics; Nursing Ethics; Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics; Hastings Center Report; Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics; Christian Bioethics; and Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal) was conducted for a 12-year period from 2004 to 2015. Data obtained was analysed descriptively and using a non-parametric Chi-square test.ResultsOf the total number of original papers (N = 5567) published in the nine bioethics journals, 18.1% (n = 1007) collected and analysed empirical data. Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics led the empirical publications, accounting for 89.4% of all empirical papers. The former published significantly more quantitative papers than qualitative, whereas the latter published more qualitative papers. Our analysis reveals no significant difference (χ2 = 2.857; p = 0.091) between the proportion of empirical papers published in 2004–2009 and 2010–2015. However, the increasing empirical trend has continued in these journals with the proportion of empirical papers increasing from 14.9% in 2004 to 17.8% in 2015.ConclusionsThis study presents the current state of affairs regarding empirical research published nine bioethics journals. In the quarter century of data that is available about the nine bioethics journals studied in two reviews, the proportion of empirical publications continues to increase, signifying a trend towards empirical research in bioethics. The growing volume is mainly attributable to two journals: Journal of Medical Ethics and Nursing Ethics. This descriptive study further maps the still developing field of empirical research in bioethics. Additional studies are needed to completely map the nature and extent of empirical research in bioethics to inform the ongoing debate about the value of empirical research for bioethics.

This study explores ethical issues raised in providing medical care to participants and communities of low-resource settings involved in a Phase II/III pediatric malaria vaccine trial (PMVT). We conducted 52 key informant interviews with major stakeholders of an international multi-center PMVT (GSK/PATH-MVI RTS,S) (NCT00866619) in Ghana and Tanzania. Based on their stakeholder experiences, the responses fell into three main themes: (a) undue inducement, (b) community disparities, and (c) broad therapeutic misconceptions. The study identified the critical ethical aspects, from the perspectives of stakeholders, of delivering health care during a PMVT. The study showed that integrating research into health care services needs to be addressed in a manner that upholds the favorable risk-benefit ratio of research and attends to the health needs of local populations. The implementation of research should aim to improve local standards of care through building a collaborative agenda with local institutions and systems of health.

Through defining Health Research for Development six key learning points were generated from the four result themes: 1) Ensure there is local research leadership working with the collaborative partnership, and local healthcare system, to align the project agenda and activities with local research and health priorities; 2) Know the country-specific context - map the social, health, legislative and political setting; 3) Define an explicit development component and plan of action in a research project; 4) Address the barriers and opportunities to sustain system capacity. 5) Support decentralised health system decision-making to facilitate the translation pathway; 6) Govern, monitor and evaluate the development components of health research partnerships. Overall, equity and unity between partners are required to deliver health research for development.