Examining study participants’ decision-making and ethics-related experiences in a dietary community randomized controlled trial in Malawi

Abstract

Background The participant recruitment process is a key ethical pivot point when conducting robust research. There is a need to continuously review and improve recruitment processes in research trials and to build fair and effective partnerships between researchers and participants as an important core element in ensuring the ethical delivery of high-quality research. When participants make a fair, informed, and voluntary decision to enroll in a study, they agree to fulfill their roles. However, supporting study participants to fulfill study requirements is an important ethical obligation for researchers, yet evidenced as challenging to achieve. This paper reports on participants’ motivations to volunteer and remain part of a dietary study conducted in Kasungu District, Malawi. Methods We conducted twenty in-depth interviews (with chiefs, religious leaders, trial participants, and health surveillance assistants), five systematic ethnographic observations, and fourteen focus group discussions with trial participants and their partners. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a grounded theory methodology to analyse data that included coding, detailed memo writing, and data interpretation. Findings The findings reveal that many participants had concerns during the trial. Thematically, experiences included anxieties, mistrust of researchers, rumours, fears of exploitation, and misconceptions. Anonymous concerns collected from the participants were reported to the trial team which enabled the researchers to appropriately support participants. Despite initial concerns, participants described being supported and expressed motivation to take up their role. Conclusion These findings highlight a diverse map of multiple notions of what is ethically relevant and what can impact participation and retention within a study. The study has revealed how embedding a responsive approach to address participants’ concerns and ethical issues can support trust relationships. We argue for the need to employ embedded ethics strategies that enhance informed consent, focus on participants’ needs and positive experiences, and support researchers to fulfill their roles. This work highlights the need for research ethics committees to focus on the risks of undue influence and prevent exploitation especially in settings with a high asymmetry in resources and power between researcher and participant groups. Trial Registration: The Addressing Hidden Hunger with Agronomy (Malawi) trial was registered on 5th March 2019 (ISCRTN85899451).

API integration and organisational agility outcomes in digital music platforms: A qualitative case study

“…We consider these participants desirable as they form part of the top-ranking executives, are skilled professionals in API development and integration and possess capabilities that others do not [ 98 , 99 ]. We recruited multiple participants at different levels of the organisation to capture different perspectives and experiences on how their API journey and outcomes were achieved [ 100 ]. Data was collected from willing and available participants and at their convenience.…”

Doctoral training to support sustainable soil geochemistry research in Africa

“…More than 10 new PhD studentships were registered through GeoNutrition, mostly in Ethiopia and Malawi, building directly on our ACBI consortium model. Outputs of GeoNutrition included primary papers [37,41,42,[47][48][49][50] and co-developed policy briefings for policymakers, which included socio-economic and ethical analyses of agricultural policies and practices to alleviate micronutrient malnutrition. The GeoNutrition project itself then led to further BMGF funding via the 'Micronutrient Action Policy Support (MAPS) Tool' project (2019-2024).…”

Making research ethics work for global health: towards a more agile and collaborative approach

“…Overly standardised ethics procedures risk equity because one size does not fit all. Moreover, as mentioned, standards tend to become the unthought-of norm,2 and may limit research teams’ ongoing reflection and emergent ethical concerns 42. The impossibility to anticipate fieldwork situations and ethical dilemmas arising from them27 33 43 points to the limits of formal, universal and standardised procedures.…”

“…Moreover, as mentioned, standards tend to become the unthought-of norm, 2 and may limit research teams’ ongoing reflection and emergent ethical concerns. 42 The impossibility to anticipate fieldwork situations and ethical dilemmas arising from them 27 33 43 points to the limits of formal, universal and standardised procedures. What is needed is ongoing ethics reflection, and thus processual, agile and adaptive ethics procedures rather than one-off, standardised ‘tick box’ ethics.…”

“…After all, the mere presence of informed consent does not guarantee an ethical process. 19 As Matandika et al 42 p11 note: ‘a willingness to consent to be part of a research project can hide a wide range of initial and ongoing concerns among study participants, which highlight the need to further protect participants’ rights and support those who consent through the life of a project.’…”