Governance of research involving people with psychosocial disabilities

• Published in: Wellcome Open Research
• Main Author: Wickremsinhe M.; Carrecedo S.; Yakubu A.; Yusof A.N.M.; Kaur S.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: F1000 Research Ltd 2023
• Online Access: https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-85203267474&doi=10.12688%2fwellcomeopenres.19279.1&partnerID=40&md5=e58bf0cf152c3120cece49362d660334

Health-related research with human participants is governed by research ethics regulations in most jurisdictions. Globally, the 2016 International Ethical Guidelines for Health-related Research Involving Humans, published by the Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), are especially influential and widely held as an international standard. The CIOMS guidelines support the inclusion of people with psychosocial disabilities in research and offer clear guidance to promote their recruitment, including by outlining provisions for substitute decision-making. The CIOMS guidelines sit alongside the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Adopted in 2006 and ratified in 2008, the CRPD offers a robust framework for recognizing the rights of persons with disabilities, including individuals with psychosocial disabilities. Though the CRPD does not explicitly reference research inclusion, its core principles—especially pertaining to the right to universal legal capacity—have clear implications for research ethics governance, specifically with respect to the use of substitute decision-making for research participation. In this paper, we review the extent to which existing research ethics regulations across selected jurisdictions concord with each of these two frameworks, offering first a broad analysis of regulations across 26 African countries, and then exploring two country-specific case studies from Malaysia and Peru. We find that, while many countries’ research ethics regulations align with key aspects of the CIOMS guidelines, core principles of the CRPD are absent. Given the shortcomings of existing regulations, we analyse a key point of tension between CIOMS and the CRPD—the right to participate in research—and offer a proposal for revised regulations that aims to bridge this tension and meet the standards of both frameworks. Copyright: © 2023 Wickremsinhe M et al.