Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Review

Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings

Author: Eric D. Perakslis

Published in: Conflict and Health | Issue 1/2018

Abstract

Conducting research in a humanitarian setting requires quantifiable quality measures to ensure ethical study conduct. Digital health technologies are proven to improve research study quality and efficacy via automated data collection, improvement of data reliability, fidelity and resilience and by improved data provenance and traceability. Additionally, digital health methodologies can improve patient identity, patient privacy, study transparency, data sharing, competent informed consent, and the confidentiality and security of humanitarian operations. It can seem counterintuitive to press forward aggressively with digital technologies at a time of heightened population vulnerability and cyber security concerns, but new approaches are essential to meet the rapidly increasing demands of humanitarian research. In this paper we present the case for the digital modernization of humanitarian research in conflict and other humanitarian settings as a vehicle for improved research quality and ethics.

Ford N, Mills EJ, Zachariah R, Upshur R. Ethics of conducting research in conflict settings. Confl Heal. 2009; https://doi.org/10.1186/1752-1505-3-7.

Schopper D, Upshur R, Matthys F, Singh JA, Bandewar SS, Ahmad A, van Dongen E. Research ethics review in humanitarian contexts: the experience of the independent ethics review Board of Medecins Sans Frontieres. PLoS Med 2009; doi: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000115.

Schopper D, et al. Innovations in research ethics governance in humanitarian settings. BMC Med Ethics. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-015-0002-3.

Waldman RJ, Toole MJ. Where is the science in humanitarian health? Lancet. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31275-8.

Blanchett K, et al. Health in humanitarian crisis 1: evidence on public health interventions in humanitarian crisis. Lancet. 2017; doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30768-1

Checchi F, et al. Health in humanitarian crisis 2: public health information in crisis-affected populations: a review of methods and their use for advocacy and action. Lancet. 2017; doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30702-X

Cancedda C, et al. Strengthening health systems while responding to a health crisis: lessons learned by a nongovernmental organization during the Ebola virus disease epidemic in Sierra Leone. J Infect Dis. 2016;214(suppl 3):S153–63.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Mesmar S. The impact of digital technology on health of populations affected by humanitarian crisis: recent innovations and current gaps. J Public Health Policy. 2016; doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0040-1

Jobanputra K. Electronic medical records in humanitarian emergencies - the development of an Ebola clinical information and patient management system. F1000 Res. 2017; https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8287.3.

10.

Perakslis ED. Strategies for delivering value from digital technology transformation. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1038/nrd.2016.265.

11.

National Academies of Science. Integrating clinical research into epidemic response: the Ebola experience. Washington DC: National Academies Press; 2017.

12.

Provazza A. How mobile health technology aided Ebola response. Tech Target; 2016. https://searchmobilecomputing.techtarget.com/news/450297862/How-mobile-health-technology-aided-Ebola-response.

13.

JeFee- Bahloul H, Duchen D, Barkil-Oteo A. Attitudes towards implementation of store-and-forward Telemental health in humanitarian settings: survey of Syrian healthcare providers. Telemed e-Health. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2015.0021.

14.

Wright V, Dalwai M, Smith RV, Jemmy JP. Médecins Sans Frontières’ clinical guidance mobile application: analysis of a new electronic health tool. Public Health Action. 2015; https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.15.0057.

15.

Vickery M. The surprising place where cash is going extinct. BBC World - Future Untold World. 2017;13:1–12.

16.

Tseng J, Samagh S, Fraser D, Landman AB. Catalyzing healthcare ransformation with digital health: performance indicators and lessons learned from a digital health innovation group. Healthc. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hjdsi.2017.09.003.

17.

Pare G, Sicotte C, Jaana M, Giroud D. Prioritizing the risk factors influencing the success of clinical information system projects. A Delphi study in Canada. Methods Inf Med. 2008;47(3):251–9.PubMed

18.

Project Management Institute, Executive Engagement: The Role of the Sponsor. Available: https://www.pmi.org/-/media/pmi/documents/public/pdf/business-solutions/executive-engagement.pdf. Accessed 19 Jan 2018.

19.

Panyard DJ, Ramly E, Dean SM, Bartels CM. Bridging clinical researcher perceptions and health IT realities: a case study of stakeholder creep. Int J Med Inform. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.014.

20.

Ostrovsky A, Deen N, Simon A, Mate K. A framework for selecting digital health technology. Cambridge, MA: Institute for Healthcare Improvement; 2014. http://www.ihi.org/resources/Pages/Publications/AFrameworkforSelectingDigitalHealthTechnology.aspx. Accessed 15 Aug 2017

21.

Behns S, Lau L, Sarrazin H. The new tech talent you need to succeed in digital: McKinsey & Co; 2016. https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/digital-mckinsey/our-insights/the-new-tech-talent-you-need-to-succeed-in-digital. Accessed 20 Jan 2018.

22.

Half R. 6 basic SDLC methodologies: which one is best?. 2017. Available: https://www.roberthalf.com/blog/salaries-and-skills/6-basic-sdlc-methodologies-which-one-is-best. Accessed 20 Jan 2018.

23.

Gostin L. Ethical principles for the conduct of human subject research: population-based research and ethics. Law Med Healthc. 1991;19(3–4):191–201. Fall-Winter.CrossRef

24.

CIOMS Working Group. International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans. Geneva, Switzerland: CIOMS; 2016.

25.

Hunt M, Pringle J, Christen M, Eckenwiler L, Schwartz L, Dave A. Ethics of emergent information and communication technology applications in humanitarian medical assistance. Int Health. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1093/inthealth/ihw028.

26.

Taylor L. The ethics of big data as a public good: which public? Whose good? Phil Trans A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2016.0126.

27.

Woodward A, Sheahan K, Martineau T, Sondrp E. Health systems research in fragile and conflict affected states: a qualitative study of associated challenges. Health Res Policy Syst. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-017-0204-x.

28.

Sheather J, et al. A Medecins sans Frontieres ethics framework for humanitarian intervention. PLOS Med. 2016; doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002111

29.

Asi YM, Williams C. The role of diital health in making progress toward Sustainable develop goal (SDG)3 in conflict-affected populations. Int J Med Inform. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.11.003.

30.

Berens J, Mans U, Verhulst S. Mapping and comparing responsible data approaches. New York: GOVLAB Centre for Innovation; 2016.

31.

Kadam RA. Informed consent process: a step towards making it meaningful. Perspect Clin Res. 2017; https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.PICR_147_16.

32.

Aguila E, Weidmer BA, Illingworth AR, Martinez H. Culturally competent informed-consent process to evaluate a social policy for older persons with low literacy: the Mexican case. Sage Open. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244016665886.

33.

Grady C, et al. Informed consent: the changing face of informed consent. NEJM. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1603773.

34.

Simonds VW, Garroutte EM, Buchwald D. Health literacy and informed consent materials: designed for documentation, not comprehension of Health Research. J Health Commun. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2017.1341565.

35.

Cummings SR, Rowbotham MC. Electronic informed consent and internet-based trials. NEJM. 2017:859–61.

36.

Perrenoud B, Velonaki VS, Bodenmann P, Ramelet AS. The effectiveness of health literacy interventions on the informed consent process of health care users: a systematic review protocol. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2015; https://doi.org/10.11124/jbisrir-2015-2304.

37.

Moore S, Tasse AM, Thorogood A, Winship I, Zawati M, Doerr M. Consent processes for mobile app mediated research: systematic review. JMIR Health Uhealth. 2017; https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.7014.

38.

Abay S, Addissie A, Davey G, Farsides B, Addissie T. Rapid ethical assessment on informed consent content and procedure in Hintalo-Wajirat, northern Ethiopia: a qualitative study. PLoS One. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157056.

39.

U.-D. DIVISION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT. Sustainable development goal 16. 2016. Available: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg16. Accessed 15 Sept 2017.

40.

Griffith E. How to wipe yourself off the grid. PCMag. 2012:1–3. https://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2376024,00.asp.

41.

Perakslis E. Cybersecurity in health care. NEJM. 2014; https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1404358.

42.

Liu V, Musen MA, Chou T. Data breeches of protected health information in the United States. JAMA. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.2252.

43.

Berkley S. Solving a global identity crisis. MIT Technol Rev. JAMA. 2015;313(14):1471-3. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.2252.

44.

Merrell RC, Doarn DR. Identity theft, a reprise. Telemedicine and e-health; 2017. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.29010.crd.

45.

Ambadiyil S, Soorej KS, Mahadevan Pillai VP. Biometric based unique ID generation and one to one verification for security documents. Procedia Comput Sci. 2015; doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.02.075

46.

HHS.gov. Guidance regarding methods for De-Identfication of protected health information in accordance with the health insurance portability and accountability ACT (HIPAA) privacy rule, 2012. https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/privacy/hipaa/understanding/coveredentities/De-identification/hhs_deid_guidance.pdf. Accessed 5 Sept 2017.

47.

Gemalto, Digital identity trends – 5 forces that are shaping 2017, 2017. Available: http://www.gemalto.com/govt/identity/digital-identity-trends. Accessed 14 Sept 2017.

48.

NIST. Digital identity guidelines: now available. 2017. https://pages.nist.gov/800-63-3/. Accessed 4 Sept 2017.

49.

Clark J, et al. Digital identity: towards shared principles for public and private sector cooperation. Washington DC: World Bank Group; 2016.

50.

Sahoo SS, Valdez J, Rueschman M. Scientific reproducibility in biomedical research: provenance metadata ontology for semantic annotation of study description. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2016;2016:1070–9. eCollection 2016PubMed

51.

Imran M, Hlavacs H, Haq IU, Jan B, Khan FA, Ahmad A. Provenance based data integrity checking and verification in cloud environments. PLoS One. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0177576.

52.

Kazic T. Ten simple rules for Experiments’ provenance. PLoS Comput Biol. 2015; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004384.

53.

Perakslis ED, Stanley M. A cybersecurity primer for translational research. Sci Transl Med. 2016; https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa4493.

54.

Perakslis E. Cyber threat, protection and resilience in humanitarian relief and response. Lancet Global Health Blog. 2017;

55.

Norton, Symantec. Android vs iOS: which is more secure? Available: https://us.norton.com/internetsecurity-mobile-android-vs-ios-which-is-more-secure.html. Accessed 15 Sept 2017.

56.

Coughlin SS. Reproducing epidemiologic research and ensuring transparency. Am J Epidemiol. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx065.

57.

Mandal J, Parija SC. Ethics of sponsored research. Trop Parasitol. 2014; https://doi.org/10.4103/2229-5070.129140.

58.

Goldacre B, et al. Pharmaceutical companies’ policieson access to trial data, results and methods: audit study. BMJ. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j3334.

59.

Han S, et al. A checklist is associated with increased quality of reporting preclinical biomedical research: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017; https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183591.

60.

Maxmen A. Massive Ebola data site planned to combat outbreaks, Nature news; 2017. p. 1–4.

Title: Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings
Author: Eric D. Perakslis
Publication date: 01-12-2018
Publisher: BioMed Central
Published in: Conflict and Health / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1752-1505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13031-018-0163-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Using digital health to enable ethical health research in conflict and other humanitarian settings

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on sleep in brain health

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

SMS-based smartphone application for disease surveillance has doubled completeness and timeliness in a limited-resource setting – evaluation of a 15-week pilot program in Central African Republic (CAR)

"I prefer dying fast than dying slowly", how institutional abuse worsens the mental health of stranded Syrian, Afghan and Congolese migrants on Lesbos island following the implementation of EU-Turkey deal

Provision of emergency obstetric care at secondary level in a conflict setting in a rural area of Afghanistan – is the hospital fulfilling its role?

Mechanisms of change for interventions aimed at improving the wellbeing, mental health and resilience of children and adolescents affected by war and armed conflict: a systematic review of reviews

Tuberculosis contact-tracing among Syrian refugee populations: lessons from Jordan

Risk factors for vitamin A and D deficiencies among children under-five in the state of Palestine