Skip to main content

Table 3 Ethics considerations: ethics review, consent, risk minimization, privacy

From: Research ethics and refugee health: a review of reported considerations and applications in published refugee health literature, 2015-2018

Ethical Consideration

N (%)

Ethics Review

 Yes

271 (94.1)

 No1

2 (0.7)

Unknown/not mentioned2

15 (5.2)

 Type of Investigators3

  ≥ 1 internal investigator(s) (from country of investigation)4

264 (91.7)

 Only external investigators (not from country of investigation)5

24 (8.3)

Location of Ethics Review, if all investigators from a different country (n = 23)

 External Review

7 (30.4)

 Internal Review

4 (17.4)

 Both

11 (47.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

1 (4.3)

 Review of Protocol by Refugee(s)

 Yes

23 (8.0)

Unknown/not mentioned

265 (92)

Consent Obtained

 Yes

249 (86.5)

 No6

2 (0.7)

 Unknown/not mentioned

37 (12.8)

Format of Consent (n = 249)

 Written

116 (46.6)

 Verbal

38 (15.3)

 Both

27 (10.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

68 (27.3)

Reiterative Consent (n = 249)

 Yes

17 (6.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

232 (93.2)

Translation of Consent (n = 249)

 Yes

162 (65.1)

 Unknown/not mentioned

87 (34.9)

Minimization of Risks, mentioned

 Mentioned

216 (75.0)

 Unknown/not mentioned

72 (25.0)

Risk Minimization (not mutually exclusive, n = 216)

 Cultural sensitivity (interviewers’ demographics matched)

78 (36.1)

 Provided trainings for investigators

61 (28.2)

 Doctor/counselor present, or provided referrals

33 (15.3)

 Piloted investigation, protocol reviewed by doctor, etc.

25 (11.6)

 Other

109 (50.5)

 Unknown/not mentioned

72 (25.0)

Privacy Measures Undertaken

 Mentioned

143 (49.7)

 Unknown/not mentioned

145 (50.3)

Location of Data Collection

 Private

183 (63.5)

 Public

24 (8.3)

 Unknown/not mentioned

81 (28.1)

Data Stored as Deidentified

 Yes

55 (19.1)

 Unknown/not mentioned

233 (80.9)

Collection of Identifiable Information

 Yes

66 (22.9)

 No

47 (16.3)

 Unknown/not mentioned

175 (60.8)

Use of an Interpreter

 Yes

191 (66.3)

 Sometimes/when available

6 (2.1)

 No

15 (5.2)

 Unknown/not mentioned

76 (26.4)

Source of Interpreter (n = 197)

 Native speakers, from community

46 (23.4)

 Native speakers, from another community

19 (9.6)

 Native speakers, unspecified community

17 (8.6)

 Non-native speakers

6 (3.0)

 Unknown/not mentioned

109 (55.3)

Digital/Audio Recording of Any Portion of Data Collection

 Yes

78 (27.1)

 No

57 (19.8)

 Unknown/not mentioned

153 (53.1)

  1. 1 No ethics reviews: (1) audit that did not meet the criteria for an ethics review, (2) an ethics review was not required/sought for student thesis [15, 16]
  2. 2 Two of the unknown ethics reviews could have received an ethics review: (1) stated approval by hospital administration, (2) stated that prior study with same sample population had an ethics review [17, 18]
  3. 3 Using the list of authors
  4. 4 248 (94%) mentioned an ethics review, 14 (5%) unknown, 2 (1%) no review
  5. 5 23 (96%) mentioned an ethics review, 1 (4%) unknown
  6. 6 Two investigations stated “no” consent was obtained, citing routine screening/clinical care and quality improvement as justifications [19, 20]