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.

ObjectiveTo document and explore the views and experiences of key stakeholders regarding the consent procedures of an emergency research clinical trial examining immediate fluid resuscitation strategies, and to discuss the implications for similar trials in future.MethodsA social science sub-study of the FEAST (Fluid Expansion As Supportive Therapy) trial. Interviews were held with trial team members (n = 30), health workers (n = 15) and parents (n = 51) from two purposively selected hospitals in Soroti, Uganda, and Kilifi, Kenya.FindingsOverall, deferred consent with prior assent was seen by staff and parents as having the potential to protect the interests of both patients and researchers, and to avoid delays in starting treatment. An important challenge is that the validity of verbal assent is undermined when inadequate initial information is poorly understood. This concern needs to be balanced against the possibility that full prior consent on admission potentially causes harm through introducing delays. Full prior consent also potentially imposes worries on parents that clinicians are uncertain about how to proceed and that clinicians want to absolve themselves of any responsibility for the child’s outcome (some parents’ interpretation of the need for signed consent). Voluntariness is clearly compromised for both verbal assent and full prior consent in a context of such vulnerability and stress. Further challenges in obtaining verbal assent were: what to do in the absence of the household decision-maker (often the father); and how medical staff handle parents not giving a clear agreement or refusal.ConclusionWhile the challenges identified are faced in all research in low-income settings, they are magnified for emergency trials by the urgency of decision making and treatment needs. Consent options will need to be tailored to particular studies and settings, and might best be informed by consultation with staff members and community representatives using a deliberative approach.

BackgroundPlanning 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 FindingsUsing 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.ConclusionsProviding 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.

Background Human infection studies (HIS) that involve deliberately infecting healthy volunteers with a pathogen raise important ethical issues, including the need to ensure that benefits and burdens are understood and appropriately accounted for. Building on earlier work, we embedded social science research within an ongoing malaria human infection study in coastal Kenya to understand the study benefits and burdens experienced by study stakeholders in this low-resource setting and assess the wider implications for future research planning and policy. Methods Data were collected using qualitative research methods, including in-depth interviews (44), focus group discussions (10) and non-participation observation. Study participants were purposively selected (key informant or maximal diversity sampling), including volunteers in the human infection study, study staff, community representatives and local administrative authorities. Data were collected during and up to 18 months following study residency, from sites in Coastal and Western Kenya. Voice recordings of interviews and discussions were transcribed, translated, and analysed using framework analysis, combining data- and theory-driven perspectives. Findings Physical, psychological, economic and social forms of benefits and burdens were experienced across study stages. Important benefits for volunteers included the study compensation, access to health checks, good residential living conditions, new learning opportunities, developing friendships and satisfaction at contributing towards a new malaria vaccine. Burdens primarily affected study volunteers, including experiences of discomfort and ill health; fear and anxiety around aspects of the trial process, particularly deliberate infection and the implications of prolonged residency; anxieties about early residency exit; and interpersonal conflict. These issues had important implications for volunteers’ families, study staff and the research institution’s reputation more widely. Conclusion Developing ethically and scientifically strong HIS relies on grounded accounts of volunteers, study staff and the wider community, understood in the socioeconomic, political and cultural context where studies are implemented. Recognition of the diverse, and sometimes perverse, nature of potential benefits and burdens in a given context, and who this might implicate, is critical to this process. Prior and ongoing stakeholder engagement is core to developing these insights.