Refocusing the responsiveness requirement

Bioethics

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 151-159

  Shah, Seema ^a   Wolitz, Rebecca ^a   Emanuel, Ezekiel ^b  

^a NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Global health; International research ethics; Priority setting; Responsiveness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; DEVELOPING COUNTRY; HEALTH CARE PLANNING; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLIC RELATIONS; RESEARCH ETHICS;

COMMUNITY-INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONS; DEVELOPING COUNTRIES; ETHICS, RESEARCH; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PRIORITIES; HEALTH SERVICES NEEDS AND DEMAND; HUMANS;

EID: 84873986488     PISSN: 02699702     EISSN: 14678519     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01903.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. 2002 Global Forum for Health Research. The 10/90 report on health research, 2001-2002. Geneva: The Forum. Some have argued that the disparity in global funding of research is no longer as stark as it once was, and that referring to the 10/90 Gap today overstates the problem. P. Stevens. 2004. Diseases of Poverty and the 10/90 Gap. World Health Organization International Policy Network. London: Hanway Print Centre. Although it may be true that neglected tropical diseases do not account for large disease burden, the available data suggest that considerable gaps remain in needed funding for the highest causes of disease burden in developing countries. In particular, even for diseases like HIV and malaria that are receiving relatively large amounts of funding, '[t]he tendency to focus on drugs and vaccines over diagnostics, platform technologies, and developing-country specific products is also of concern. '.
2. M. Moran et al. Neglected Disease Research and Development: How Much Are We Really Spending? PLoS Medicine 2009; 6(2).
3. E. Landriault & S.A. Matlin. 2009. Monitoring Financial Flows for Health Research 2009: Behind the Global Numbers. Global Forum for Health Research. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://www.globalforumhealth.org/layout/set/print/Media-Publications/Publications/Monitoring-Financial-Flows-for-Health-Research-2009-Behind-the-Global-Numbers.
4. 2001 National Bioethics Advisory Commission (NBAC). Ethical and Policy Issues in International Research: Clinical Trials in Developing Countries. Bethesda, MD: NBAC. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/human/oversumm.html.
5. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2002. Ethics of Research Related to Healthcare in Developing Countries. London: Nuffield Council. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/sites/default/files/Ethics%20of%20research%20related%20to%20healthcare%20in%20developing%20countries%20I.pdf.
6. South African Medical Research Council. 2005. Guidelines on Ethics in Medical Research: General Principles. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://www.sahealthinfo.org/ethics/book1.htm.
7. World Medical Association. 2008. Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Available at [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/.
8. Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). 2002. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: World Health Organization. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011]. http://www.cioms.ch/publications/layout_guide2002.pdf.
9. J. Kimmelman & E.M. Meslin. 2009. Helsinki Discords: FDA, Ethics, and International Drug Trials. Lancet; 373: 13-14 (discussing how the US Food and Drug Administration decided not to require compliance with the Declaration of Helsinki for trials within its jurisdiction, thereby removing a requirement to comply with responsiveness).
10. A.J. London. 2008. Responsiveness to Host Community Health Needs. In The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. E.J. Emanuel, ed. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press: 737-744.
11. World Health Organization. 2007. Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) Geneva: World Health Organization.
12. World Health Organization Ethical considerations in biomedical HIV prevention trials. Geneva: World Health Organization.
13. A.J. London & J. Kimmelman. Justice in Translation: from Bench to Bedside in the Developing World. Lancet 2008; 372: 82-85.
14. J.V. Lavery. 2007. Ethical issues in international biomedical research: A casebook. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
15. E.J. Emanuel et al. What Makes Clinical Research in Developing Countries Ethical? The Benchmarks of Ethical Research. J Infect Dis 2004; 189: 930-937.
16. M.G. Kiddugavu. 2007. Commentary 10.2: Should the Aka Pygmy People Be Targeted for Genetic Research? In Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research A Casebook. J.V. Lavery et al., eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 180-183.
17. J. Lavery. 2007. Case 10: Trading Genes for Toothbrushes Research with the Aka Pygmy People in the Central African Republic. In Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research A Casebook. Lavery et al., eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 171-174.
18. S. Giordano & J. Harris. 2007. Commentary 10.1: Ethics and Research on Human Genetic Material. In Ethical Issues in International Biomedical Research A Casebook. 2007. Lavery et al., eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 174-180.
19. Lavery et al., eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 174-180.
20. 2004 WHO. Death and DALY Estimates for 2002 by Cause for WHO Member States. In Burden of Disease Statistics. Geneva: World Health Organization.
21. 2002 COHRED. Health Research Priority Setting Lessons Learned. In Learning Brief. Geneva: The Council on Health Research for Development.
22. T. Arnesen & L. Kapiriri. Can the Value Choices in DALYs Influence Global Priority-Setting? Health Policy 2004; 70: 137-149.
23. B. Robberstad. QALYs vs. DALYs vs. LYs gained: What are the Differences, and What Difference do they Make for Health Priority Setting? Norwegian Journal of Epidemiology 2005; 15.
24. Moral Standards for Research in Developing Countries. From 'Reasonable Availability' to 'Fair Benefits'. Hastings Cent Rep 2004; 34(3): 17-27.
25. Z. Zong. Should Post-trial Provision of Beneficial Experimental Interventions be Mandatory in Developing Countries? J Med Ethics 2008; 34: 188-192.
26. World Health Organization (WHO). 2008. Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research: Summary Report. Geneva: World Health Organization.
27. C. Mitton & C. Donaldson C. Tools of the Trade: a Comparative Analysis of Approaches to Priority Setting in Healthcare. Health Services Management Research 2003; 16: 96-105.
28. J. Orem et al. Burkitt's Lymphoma in Africa, a Review of the Epidemiology and Etiology. African Health Sciences 2007; 7: 166-175.
29. A. Angulo et al. 2006. COHRED Working Paper 1 Priority Setting for Health Research: Toward a Management Process for Low and Middle Income Countries. Geneva: Council on Health Research for Development. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011].http://www.cohred.org/sites/default/files/WP1_PrioritySetting.pdf.
30. 2008 PCHRD. National Unified Health Research Agenda. Taguig City: Department of Science and Technology.
31. Philippines Increases Malaria Control Budget to $1.4M, Health Official Says. U.S. Global Health Policy. Available at: http://www. globalhealthreporting.org/article.asp?DR_ID=54705. 2008.
32. M.C. Villaverde et al. 2005. National Objectives for Health Philippines 2005-2010. Manila: Philippines Department of Health. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011] http://www.scribd.com/doc/10054349/NOH20052010may15.
33. C.J. Tabarejo. 2005. Regional Health Research and Development Priorities in Central Visayas. Manila: Center for Health Development. Available at: [Accessed 22 April 2011]. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/26285912/REGIONAL-HEALTH-RESEARCH-AND-DEVELOPMENTPRIORITIES-IN-ENTRAL-VISAYAS.
34. W. Wakabi. Kenya and Uganda Grapple with Burkitt Lymphoma. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:319.
35. O.W. Mwanda. Cancers in Children Younger than Age 16 years in Kenya. East Afr Med J 1999; 76: 3-9.
36. 1998 NHRDC. Essential National Health Research In Kenya. Geneva: COHRED.
37. J.D. Ntawukuliryayo. 2005. Health Sector Policy: Government of Rwanda. Kigali: Ministry of Health: 19.
38. M. Enserink. Global health. Some Neglected Diseases are More Neglected than Others. Science 2009; 323: 700.
39. Irudaya Rajan. Health Research Policies and Priorities in 19 African Low Income Countries. In UNESCO; 2008.
40. 2002 COHRED. Health Research Priority Setting Lessons Learned. In Learning Brief.
41. Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research: Summary Report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
42. Priority Setting Methodologies in Health Research: Summary Report. 2008. Geneva: World Health Organization.
43. N. Daniels. 2008. Just Health: Meeting health needs fairly. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Y. Teerawattananon, S. Russell & M. Mugford. A Systematic Review of Economic Evaluation Literature in Thailand: Are the Data Good Enough to be Used by Policy-makers? Pharmacoeconomics 2007; 25: 467-479.
45. D.W. Brock & D. Wikler. 2006. Ethical Issues in Resource Allocation, Research, and New Product Development. In Disease Control Priorities in Developing Countries. 2nd edn. D.T. Jamison et al., eds. Washington, DC: The World Bank and Oxford University Press: 259-270.
46. D. Callahan. Shaping Biomedical Research Priorities: The Case of the National Institutes of Health. Health Care Analysis 1999; 7: 115-129.
47. R. Klein. Puzzling out Priorities. Why we Must Acknowledge that Rationing is a Political Process. Br Med J 1998; 317: 959-960.
48. COHRED. 2004. Health research: Getting the Priorities Right. In Policy Brief Series: Making Health Research Work for everyone. Geneva: The Council on Health Research for Development.
49. R. Wolitz, E. Emanuel & S. Shah. Rethinking the Responsiveness Requirement for International Research. Lancet 2009; 374: 847-849.
50. W. Kilama. The 10/90 gap in Sub-Saharan Africa: Resolving Inequities in Health Research. Acta Tropica 2009; 112: S8-S15.
51. D. Halperin. 2008Putting a Plague in Perspective. New York Times 1 January: A17.
52. M. Rabkin, W. M. El-Sadr & K. M. De Cock. The Impact of HIV Scale-up on Health Systems: a Priority Research Agenda. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr 2009; 52: S3-S5.