Repository logo

Masters Degrees (Health Research Ethics)

Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://hdl.handle.net/10413/14453

Browse

Browsing Masters Degrees (Health Research Ethics) by Author "Groenewald, Candice Rule."

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    An exploratory study of vaccinations amongst staff at a South African research institution: personal choice or mandatory?
    (2024) Couch, Marilyn Angel.; Toohey, Jacintha Deleane.; Groenewald, Candice Rule.
    Controversies related to immunisation have existed since 1840. The focus of much discussion has been on the efficacy of vaccination in protecting public health and safety, as well as the question of vaccine mandates infringing upon individual freedoms. The COVID-19 pandemic, declared by the World Health Organization on March 11, 2020, reignited these debates. In South Africa, under Section 27(2) of the Disaster Management Act No 57 of 2002, the Minister of Employment and Labour is authorised to issue directives linked to the country’s state of disaster. As a result, the COVID-19 Occupational Health and Safety Measures in Workplaces directive (C19 OHS) (Department of Employment and Labour, 2020) was issued by the Minister of Employment and Labour in terms of regulation 10(8) issued by the Minister of Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs in terms of Section 27(2) of the Disaster Management Act No 57 of 2002 (Republic of South Africa, 2002). The objective of the directive was to implement occupational health and safety measures in the workplace to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus and to provide guidance to employers on how to deal with COVID-19 in the workplace. Consequently, this brought to light the need to tackle the dilemma of individual versus collective rights in the context of vaccine mandates in the workplace. The study aimed to explore participants' knowledge and understanding of ethical, human rights, and legal aspects of vaccination. It also sought to understand whether participants believe vaccines should be a personal choice or mandatory, as well as their experiences with COVID-19 vaccination in the workplace. This study used a qualitative methodology approach, conducting 20 semi-structured, in-depth, open-ended individual interviews that took place either face-to-face or virtually. The study sample comprised of staff members from a South African research institution, across three provinces. The interview data were transcribed and then loaded onto Atlas. ti software for coding, using the thematic analysis approach. This social science study employs an interdisciplinary approach that considers the human rights, ethics, and legal aspects in the workplace setting concerning mandatory vaccination policies. The research aimed to provide valuable insights from participants in this study concerning the multifaceted interactions between human rights law, bioethics, and the social dynamics of mandatory vaccination policies. The research also utilises the social constructionist framework as a conceptual model to examine and understand how individuals have shaped their perceptions regarding personal freedoms, the mandatory nature of vaccination, trust in vaccine role players, experiences with COVID-19 in the workplace, and the factors influencing their beliefs. This conceptual approach is used to analyse and interpret participants' viewpoints but does not dictate the entire study. The study indicates that most participants are in favour of personal choice. These findings imply that, for these participants, individual choice in medical freedoms is paramount in healthcare decision-making, including vaccination. Recommendations are made for the South African government, vaccination policymakers, employers, and for future research.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Is the ethics review process prepared for digital autonomy?
    (2024) Odero, Brenda Adhiambo.; Groenewald, Candice Rule.
    The ethics review process is of primacy in ensuring research is ethical and the protection and rights of participants are maintained. Internationally, review ethics committees (RECs) are run independently and have different ethics review methods that they use. However, very little is known about what methods are used in the ethics review process, and the challenges and successes around adopting digital platforms for ethics review (DPER). The current study aimed to address this gap by inquiring whether the ethics review process in Kenya is ready for digital autonomy. A qualitative approach was adopted in this study, including six in-depth interviews with REC members and two focus group discussions with researchers. The in-depth interviews and focus group discussions entailed two sub-groups: one group included participants who mainly use traditional methods (paper and email) and the other group included participants who mainly used DPER. These transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, informed by Braun and Clarke’s (2013) six-step approach. While generalisability is not assumed, the findings suggest that the ethics review process will only be ready for digital autonomy when all the challenges highlighted are dealt with and infrastructure is reinforced to support it. These findings imply that digital autonomy in the ethics review process is best effected when all research stakeholders are involved in the deployment, creation, and implementation stage, where institutions offer support and privacy, and security is upheld in all these technologies. Recommendations are made in practice for all research stakeholders, inclusive of RECs, researchers, and DPER deployers and developers. Recommendations are also made for future research developments on how to make the research ethics review process ready for digital autonomy.