Ethical challenges of using remote monitoring technologies for clinical research: A case study of the role of local research ethics committees in the RADAR-AD study

Author:

Muurling MarijnORCID,Pasmooij Anna M. G.,Koychev Ivan,Roik Dora,Froelich Lutz,Schwertner Emilia,Religa Dorota,Abdelnour Carla,Boada MercèORCID,Almici Monica,Galluzzi Samantha,Cardoso Sandra,de Mendonça Alexandre,Owens Andrew P.,Kuruppu Sajini,Gjestsen Martha ThereseORCID,Lazarou Ioulietta,Gkioka Mara,Tsolaki Magda,Diaz Ana,Gove Dianne,Visser Pieter Jelle,Aarsland Dag,Lucivero Federica,de Boer Casper,

Abstract

Introduction Clinical research with remote monitoring technologies (RMTs) has multiple advantages over standard paper-pencil tests, but also raises several ethical concerns. While several studies have addressed the issue of governance of big data in clinical research from the legal or ethical perspectives, the viewpoint of local research ethics committee (REC) members is underrepresented in the current literature. The aim of this study is therefore to find which specific ethical challenges are raised by RECs in the context of a large European study on remote monitoring in all syndromic stages of Alzheimer’s disease, and what gaps remain. Methods Documents describing the REC review process at 10 sites in 9 European countries from the project Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse–Alzheimer’s Disease (RADAR-AD) were collected and translated. Main themes emerging in the documents were identified using a qualitative analysis approach. Results Four main themes emerged after analysis: data management, participant’s wellbeing, methodological issues, and the issue of defining the regulatory category of RMTs. Review processes differed across sites: process duration varied from 71 to 423 days, some RECs did not raise any issues, whereas others raised up to 35 concerns, and the approval of a data protection officer was needed in half of the sites. Discussion The differences in the ethics review process of the same study protocol across different local settings suggest that a multi-site study would benefit from a harmonization in research ethics governance processes. More specifically, some best practices could be included in ethical reviews across institutional and national contexts, such as the opinion of an institutional data protection officer, patient advisory board reviews of the protocol and plans for how ethical reflection is embedded within the study.

Funder

Innovative Medicines Initiative

Stichting Alzheimer Nederland

Stichting VUmc fonds

National Institute of Health Research

Medical Research Council

Susan and Charles Berghoff Foundation

Publisher

Public Library of Science (PLoS)

Subject

Multidisciplinary

Reference35 articles.

1. New tools for new research in psychiatry: a scalable and customizable platform to empower data driven smartphone research.;J Torous;JMIR mental health.,2016

2. Remote monitoring technologies in Alzheimer’s disease: design of the RADAR-AD study.;M Muurling;Alzheimer’s research & therapy.,2021

3. Digital technologies for the assessment of cognition: a clinical review.;A Chinner;Evidence-based mental health.,2018

4. Remote assessment of disease and relapse in major depressive disorder (RADAR-MDD): a multi-centre prospective cohort study protocol.;F Matcham;BMC Psychiatry.,2019

5. Ethical issues in using ambient intelligence in health-care settings;N Martinez-Martin;The Lancet Digital Health,2020

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3