Background:The range and amount of volunteer infection studies, known as Controlled Human Infection Model (CHMI) studies, in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) is increasing with rapid technological advancement, world-class laboratory facilities and increasing capacity development initiatives. However, the ethical issues these studies present in LMICs have not been empirically studied. We present findings of a descriptive social science study nested within a malaria volunteer infection study, on-going at the time of writing, at the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) on the Kenyan Coast.Methods:The study included non-participant observations, five group discussions with more than half of the CHMI study participants, two in-depth interviews with study team members, and an exit questionnaire administered to the participants.Results:Participants understood the key elements of the study, including that they would be deliberately infected with malaria parasites and may get malaria as a result, there would be regular blood draws, and they would spend up to 24 days in a residence facility away from their homes. The greatest motivation for participation was the monetary compensation of 20 USD per overnight stay given as a lump-sum at the end of their residency stay. Also appreciated were the health screening tests prior to enrolment and the positive relations with the study team. Concerns raised included the amount and regularity of blood draws experienced, and concerns that this type of research may feed into on-going rumours about research generally.Conclusion:With the increasing range and number of CHMI studies being conducted in LMICs, current ethical guidance are inadequate. This study highlights some of the ethical issues that could emerge in these settings, emphasizing the heavy responsibility placed on research review and regulatory systems, researchers and funders, as well as the importance of carefully tailored community engagement and consent processes.

Background: The range and amount of volunteer infection studies, known as Controlled Human Infection Model (CHMI) studies, in Low-Middle Income Countries (LMICs) is increasing with rapid technological advancement, world-class laboratory facilities and increasing capacity development initiatives. However, the ethical issues these studies present in LMICs have not been empirically studied. We present findings of a descriptive social science study nested within a malaria volunteer infection study, on-going at the time of writing, at the KEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme (KWTRP) on the Kenyan Coast. Methods: The study included non-participant observations, five group discussions with more than half of the CHMI study participants, two in-depth interviews with study team members, and an exit questionnaire administered to the participants. Results: Participants understood the key elements of the study, including that they would be deliberately infected with malaria parasites and may get malaria as a result, there would be regular blood draws, and they would spend up to 24 days in a residence facility away from their homes. The greatest motivation for participation was the monetary compensation of 20 USD per overnight stay given as a lump-sum at the end of their residency stay.  Also appreciated were the health screening tests prior to enrolment and the positive relations with the study team. Concerns raised included the amount and regularity of blood draws experienced, and concerns that this type of research may feed into on-going rumours about research generally. Conclusion: With the increasing range and number of CHMI studies being conducted in LMICs, current ethical guidance for more than minimal risk studies is inadequate. This study highlights some of the ethical issues that could emerge in these settings, emphasizing the heavy responsibility placed on research review and regulatory systems, researchers and funders, as well as the importance of carefully tailored community engagement and consent processes.

Background: Child mortality rates during hospitalisation for acute illness and after discharge are unacceptably high in many under-resourced settings. Childhood vulnerability to recurrent illness, and death, is linked to their families' situations and ability to make choices and act (their agency). We examined vulnerability and agency across treatment-seeking journeys for acutely ill children and considered the implications for policy and practice. Method: A qualitative sub-study was embedded within the prospective CHAIN Network cohort study, which is investigating mechanisms of inpatient and post-hospital discharge mortality among acutely ill young children across a spectrum of nutritional status. Primary data were collected from household members of 20 purposively selected cohort children over 18 months through formal interviews (total n = 74), complemented by informal discussions and observations. Data were analysed using narrative and thematic approaches. Results: Treatment-seeking pathways were often long and complex, particularly for children diagnosed as severely malnourished. Family members' stories reveal that children's carers, usually mothers, navigate diverse challenges related to intersecting vulnerabilities at individual, household and facility levels. Specific challenges include the costs of treatment-seeking, confusing and conflicting messaging on appropriate care and nutrition, and poor continuity of care. Strong power inequities were observed between family members and health staff, with many mothers feeling blamed for their child's condition. Caregivers' agency, as demonstrated in decision-making and actions, often drew on the social support of others but was significantly constrained by their situation and broader structural drivers.

Health research in low-resource settings often involves individuals and populations defined as ‘vulnerable’. There is growing attention in the literature to the ethical dilemmas that frontline research staff face while conducting such research. However, there is little documented as to how research staff might support one another in identifying and handling these dilemmas in different contexts. Over the course of conducting empirical ethics research embedded in the Childhood Acute Illness & Nutrition Network, we developed an approach to examine and respond to the ethical issues and dilemmas faced by the study teams, particularly frontline staff. In this paper we describe the specific tools and approach we developed, which centred on regular cross-team ethics reflection sessions, and share lessons learnt. We suggest that all studies involving potentially vulnerable participants should incorporate activities and processes to support frontline staff in identifying, reflecting on and responding to ethical dilemmas, throughout studies. We outline the resources needed to do this and share piloted tools for further adaptation and evaluation. Such initiatives should complement and feed into—and certainly not in any way replace or substitute for—strong institutional ethics review, safeguarding and health and safety policies and processes, as well broader staff training and career support initiatives.

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.