Ethical standards for mental health and psychosocial support research in emergencies: review of literature and current debates.
Research in emergencies is needed to understand the prevalence of mental health and psychosocial problems and strengthen the evidence base for interventions. All research - including operational needs assessments, programme monitoring and evaluation, and formal academic research - must be conducted ethically. While there is broad consensus on fundamental principles codified in research ethics guidelines, these do not address the ethical specificities of conducting mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) research with adults in emergencies. To address this gap, this paper presents a review of multidisciplinary literature to identify specific ethical principles applicable to MHPSS research in emergencies.



Fifty-nine sources meeting the literature review inclusion criteria were analysed following a thematic synthesis approach. There was consensus on the relevance of universal ethical research principles to MHPSS research in emergencies, including norms of participant informed consent and protection; ensuring benefit arises from research participation; researcher neutrality, accountability, and safety; and the duty to ensure research is well designed and accounts for contextual factors in emergency settings. We go onto discuss unresolved issues by highlighting six current debates relating to the application of ethics in emergency settings: (1) what constitutes fair benefits?; (2) how should informed consent be operationalised?; (3) is there a role for decision making capacity assessments?; (4) how do risk management approaches impact upon the construction of ethical research?; (5) how can ethical reflection best be achieved?, and (6) are ethical review boards sufficiently representative and equipped to judge the ethical and scientific merit of emergency MHPSS research? Underlying these debates is a systemic tension between procedural ethics and ethics in practice. In summary, underpinning the literature is a desire to ensure the protection of participants exposed to emergencies and in need of evidence-based MHPSS. However, there is a lack of agreement on how to contextualise guidelines and procedures to effectively maximise the perspectives of researchers, participants and ethical review boards. This is a tension that the field must address to strengthen ethical MHPSS research in emergencies.
University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, 2nd Floor, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK. Anna.Chiumento@liverpool.ac.uk.
Anna
A
Chiumento
University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, 2nd Floor, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Atif
A
Rahman
University of Liverpool, Institute of Psychology, Health and Society, 2nd Floor, Block B, Waterhouse Building, 1-5 Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GL, UK.
Lucy
L
Frith
Independent Consultant, Peace in Practice, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Leslie
L
Snider
Johns Hopkins University, School of Public Health and The Peter C. Alderman Foundation, Baltimore, USA.
Wietse A
WA
Tol
D064891:Disaster Victims / Q000523:psychology; D004630:Emergencies / Q000523:psychology*; D032984:Ethics, Research; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000941:ethics / Q000523:psychology; D008603:Mental Health / Q000941:ethics*; D012015:Reference Standards; D035842:Research Subjects / Q000523:psychology; D018570:Risk Assessment / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards; D012941:Social Responsibility; D012944:Social Support
Conflict; Disaster; Emergencies; Ethical practice; Mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS); Monitoring and evaluation; Multidisciplinary literature review; Research ethics; Research guidelines