Outputs

The researchers in the PREA project discuss their aims and hopes for this project investigating research ethics as experienced by humanitarian researchers. Recorded during the PREA Researcher Training in Qualitative Research Methods held at Anglia Ruskin University, UK, during Humanitarian Evidence Week, 6-8 November 2017.

People affected by humanitarian crises deserve responses that promote health, respect dignity, and uphold rights. In this Lancet Series on health in humanitarian crises, Karl Blanchet and colleagues highlight substantial deficiencies in the evidence available to guide humanitarian responses. Their call for additional research echoes similar appeals. In the second Series paper, Francesco Checchi and colleagues argue for improved methods in such research, highlighting the need for better information systems.

Vulnerability of research populations is a fundamental area of interest and debate in bioethics. Based on mental health research in a humanitarian setting context, I explore vulnerability-related issues and developing enhanced protective practices. Motivated by experience from mental health research among forced-migrants, and faced by a lack of guidance on sharing the ethical lessons-learnt, I explore the concept of post-research ethics audit as a mechanism for reflection that researchers working with vulnerable populations can use. A coherent post-research strategy to critically examine the quality of ethical frameworks, debrief researcher experience and explore ethical challenges in research implementation is unavailable. The more-established clinical audit process can be a model for the post-research ethics audit due to conceptual similarities in improving current practices by comparing the ideal versus the real scenario and measuring the effect of implementing changes. The proposed strategy presents a feasible way of identifying discrepancies between existing guidance and actual on-field implementation of research. Such a concept, if supported by empirical evidence based on its applicability, adaptability and feasibility, can become a platform to identify participant community needs, perceive community-specific ethical challenges, identify gaps in ethical oversight, examine researcher integrity and potential misconduct. However, such activity needs to be researcher and ethics committee friendly, easily adaptable and implementable within existing ethical oversight frameworks, to enhance researcher-driven ethical practices and promote participant involvement.