comparative analysis of the qualitative and quantitative research approaches

Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques: recent advances and challenges

Cite this chapter.

• Benoît Rihoux 1  

58k Accesses

13 Citations

Following a seminal volume by ( 1987 ), a set of systematic comparative case analysis techniques has been developing at a steady pace. During the last few years especially, the main initial technique, Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA), has been complemented by other related techniques. The purpose of this contribution is to critically assess some main recent developments in this field.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Unable to display preview.  Download preview PDF.

Abbott, A. (1995): Sequence Analysis: New Methods for Old Ideas. In: Annual Review of Sociology 21: 93–113.

Article   Google Scholar  

Abbott, A/ Barman, E. (1997): Sequence Comparison Via Alignment and Gibbs Sampling: A Formal Analysis of the Emergence of the Modern Sociological Article. In: Sociological Methodology 27: 47–87.

Abell, P. (1987): The Syntax of Social Life: The Theory and Method of Comparative Narratives. Oxford.

Google Scholar  

Abell, P. (2004): Narrative Explanation: an alternative to variable-centered explanation? In: Annual Review of Sociology 30: 287–310.

Amenta, E./ Poulsen, J.D. (1996): Social Politics in Context: The Institutional Politics Theory and Social Spending at the End of the New Deal. In: Social Forces 75/1: 33–60.

Amoroso, L.M./ Ragin, C.C. (1999): Two Approaches to Understanding Control of Voluntary and Involuntary Job Shifts among Germans and Foreigners from 1991 to 1996. In: Quarterly Journal of Economic Research 1999/2:222–229.

Befani, B./ Ledermann, S./ Sager, F. (2006): Realistic Evaluation and QCA: Conceptual Parallels and an Empirical Application. In: Evaluation 12/2: 171–192.

Befani, B./ Sager, F. (2006): QCA as a tool for realistic evaluations. The case of the Swiss Environmental Impact Assessment. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 263–284.

Berg-Schlosser, D. (2004): Review of: “L’analyse Quali-Quantitative Comparée (AQQC-QCA)“ (G. De Meur/B. Rihoux, 2002). In: European Sociological Review 20/2: 162–165.

Berg-Schlosser, D./ Cronqvist, L. (2005): Macro-quantitative vs. Macro-qualitative Methods in the Social Sciences-an Example from Empirical Democratic Theory Employing new Software. In: Historical Social Research 4/30: 154–175.

Berg-Schlosser, D./ De Meur, G. (1994): Conditions of Democracy in Interwar Europe: A Boolean Test of Major Hypotheses. In: Comparative Politics 26/3: 253–279.

Berg-Schlosser, D./ De Meur, G. (1997): Reduction of Complexity for a Small-N Analysis: A Stepwise Multi-methodological Approach. In: Comparative Social Research 16: 133–162.

Berg-Schlosser, D./ De Meur, G. (2008, forthcoming): Comparative research design: case and variable selection. In: Rihoux, B./ Ragin, C. (Hrsg.).

Boswell, T./ Brown, C. (1999): The Scope of General Theory. Methods for Linking Deductive and Inductive Comparative History. In: Sociological Methods and Research 28/2: 154–185.

Brady, H.E./ Collier, D. (Hrsg.) (2004): Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards. Maryland.

Brown, C./ Boswell, T. (1995): Strikebreaking or Solidarity in the Great Steel Strike of 1919: A Split Labor Mar-ket, Game-Theoretic, and QCA Analysis. In: American Journal of Sociology 100/6: 1479–1519.

Brueggemann, J./ Boswell,T. (1998): Realizing Solidarity: Sources of Interracial Unionism during the Great Depression. In: Work and Occupations 25/4: 436–482.

Bursens, P. (1999): Impact van instituties op beleidsvorming. Een institutionneel perspectief op besluitvorming in de communautaire pijler van de Europese Unie. Antwerpen.

Caren, N./ Panofsky, A. (2005): TQCA. A Technique for Adding Temporality to Qualitative Comparative Analy-sis. In: Sociological Methods and Research 2/34: 147–172.

Clément, C. (2004): Un modele commun d’effondrement de l’Etat? Une AQQC du Liban, de la Somalie et de l’ex-Yougoslavie. In: Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 11/1: 35–50.

Collier, D. (1993): The comparative method. In: Finifter, A.W. (Hrsg.): 105–119.

Cress, D./ Snow, D. (2000): The Outcome of Homeless Mobilization: the Influence of Organization, Disruption, Political Mediation, and Framing. In: American Journal of Sociology 105/4: 1063–1104.

Cronqvist, L. (2005): Introduction to Multi-Value Qualitative Comparative Analysis (MVQCA). COMPASSS didactics paper nr. 2005/4.

Cronqvist, L./ Berg-Schlosser, D. (2006): Determining the conditions of HIV/AIDS prevalence in Sub-Saharan Africa. Employing new tools of macro-qualitative analysis. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 145–166.

Cronqvist, L./ Berg-Schlosser, D. (2008, forthcoming): Multi-value QCA (mvQCA). In: Rihoux, B./ Ragin, C. (Hrsg.).

De Meur, G./ Berg-Schlosser, D. (1996): Conditions of Authoritarianism, Fascism and Democracy in Inter-war Europe: Systematic Matching and Contrasting of Cases for “Small N“ Analysis. In: Comparative Political Studies 29/4:423–468.

De Meur, G./ Bursens, P./ Gottcheiner, A. (2006): MSDO/MDSO revisited for public policy analysis. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 67–94.

De Meur, G./ Rihoux, B. (2002): L’analyse quali-quantitative comparée (AQQC-QCA): approche, techniques et applications en sciences humaines. Louvain-la-Neuve.

De Meur, G./ Yamasaki, S./ Rihoux, B. (2008, forthcoming): Critiques of configurational comparative methods and « critique of the critiques ». In: Rihoux, B./ Ragin, C. (Hrsg.).

Drass, K.A./ Spencer, J.W. (1987): Accounting for Pre-sentencing Recommendations: Typologies and Probation Officers’ Theory of Office. In: Social Problems 34/3: 277–293.

Duckles, B.M./ Hager, M.A./ Galaskiewicz, J. (2005): How Nonprofits Close. Using Narratives to Study Organizational Processes. In: K.D. Elsbach (Hrsg.): 169–203.

Dumont, P./ Bäck, H. (2006): Why so few and why so late? Green parties and the question of governmental participation. In: European Journal of Political Research 45/S: s35–s68.

Ebbinghaus, B. (2005): When Less is More: Selection Problems in Large-N and Small-N Cross-national Compari-sons. In: International Sociology 20/2: 133–152.

Ebbinghaus, B./ Visser, J. (1998): When Institutions Matter: Union Growth and Decline in Western Europe, 1950-95. In: MZES Arbeitspapiere / Working papers I/30: 1–37.

Elsbach, K.D. (Hrsg.) (2005): Qualitative Organizational Research: Best Papers From The Davis Conference On Qualitative Research. Greenwich.

Finifter, A.W. (Hrsg.) (1993): Political Science: the State of the Discipline (II). Washington.

George, A.L./ Bennett, A. (2005): Case Studies and Theory Development in the Social Sciences. Cambridge.

Gerring, J. (2006): Case Study Research: Principles and Practices. Cambridge.

Gerring, J. (2005): Causation: A Unified Framework for the Social Sciences. In: Journal of Theoretical Politics 17/2: 163–198.

Goertz, G. (2006): Social Science Concepts: a User’s Guide. Princeton.

Goertz, G./ Mahoney, J. (2005): Two-Level Theories and Fuzzy-Set Analysis. In: Sociological Methods and Research 33/4:497–538.

Goodin, R.E./ Klingemann, H-D. (Hrsg.) (1996): A New Handbook of Political Science. Oxford.

Grassi, D. (2004): La survie des régimes démocratiques: une AQQC des démocraties de la “troisième vague“ en Amérique du Sud. In: Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 11/1: 17–33.

Griffin, L.J. (1993): Narrative, Event-Structure Analysis and Causal Interpretation in Historical Sociology. In: American Journal of Sociology 98/5: 1094–1133.

Griffin, L.J. (1992): Temporality, events, and explanation in historical sociology: an introduction. In: Sociological Methods and Research 20/4: 403–427.

Grimm, H. (2006): Entrepreneurship Policy and Regional Economic Growth. Exploring the Link and Theoretical Implications. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 123–144.

Hampel, F.R./ Ronchetti, E.M./ Rousseeuw, P.J./ Stahel, W. (1986): Robust statistics. The Approach Based on Influence Functions. New York.

Heikkila, T. (2003): Institutional Boundaries and Common-pool Resource Management: A Comparative Analysis of Water Management Programs in California. In: Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 23(1): 97–117.

Heise, D.R. (1989): Modeling Event Structures. In: Journal of Mathematical Sociology 14/2–3: 139–169.

Hellström, E. (2001): Conflict Cultures. Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Environmental Conflicts in Forestry. Helsinki.

Herrmann, A./ Cronqvist, L. (2006): Contradictions in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Ways Out of the Dilemma. In: EUI Working Papers SPS 2006/6: 1–24.

Hicks, A.M. (1994): Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Analytical Induction: the Case of the Emergence of the Social Security State. In: Sociological Methods and Research 23/1: 86–113.

Hodson, R./ Roscigno, V.J. (2004): Organizational Success and Worker Dignity: Complementary or Contradic-tory? In: American Journal of Sociology 110/3: 672–708.

Kanomata, N./ Nomiya, D./ Hasegawa, K. (Hrsg.) (2001): Shituteki Hikaku Bunseki [Qualitative Comparative Analysis]. Kyoto.

Katz, A./ Vom Hau, M./ Mahoney, J. (2005): Explaining the Great Reversal in Spanish America: Fuzzy Set Analy-sis versus Regression Analysis. In: Sociological Methods and Research 33/4: 539–573.

King, G./ Keohane, R./ Verba, S. (1994): Designing Social Enquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton.

Kitchener, M./ Beynon, M./ Harrington, C. (2002): Qualitative Comparative Analysis and Public Services Re-search: Lessons from an Early Application. In: Public Management Review 4/4: 485–504.

Kittel, B./ Obinger, H./ Wagschal, U. (2000): Wohlfahrtsstaaten im internationalen Vergleich. Politisch-institutionelle Faktoren der Entstehung und Entwicklungsdynamik. In: Obinger, H./ Wagschal, U. (Hrsg.): 329–364.

Krook, M-L. (2006): Temporality and Causal Configurations: Combining Sequence Analysis and Fuzzy Set / Qualitative Comparative Analysis. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the APS A, Philadelphia.

Kvist, J. (2006): Diversity, ideal types and fuzzy sets in comparative state research. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 167–184.

Levi-Faur, D. (2006): A question of size? A heuristics for stepwise comparative research design. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 43–66.

Lieberson, S. (2004): Comments on the Use and Utility of QCA. In: Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 2/2: 13–14.

Lijphart, A. (1971): Comparative Politics and the Comparative Method. In: American Political Science Review 65/3: 682–693.

Lijphart, A. (1975): The Comparable-cases Strategy in Comparative Research. In: Comparative Political Studies 8/2: 158–177.

Lobe, B. (2006): Mixing Qualitative and Quantitative Methods in the Environment of New Information-Communication Technologies. Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Ljubljana (Ph.D. dissertation).

Luoma, P. (2006): Social sustainability of community structures: A systematic comparative analysis within the Oulu Region in Northern Finland. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 237–262.

Mahoney, J. (2003a): Tentative Answers to Questions about Causal Mechanisms. Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Meetings, Philadelphia.

Mahoney, J. (2003b): Strategies of causal assessment in comparative historical analysis. In: Mahoney, J./ Rueschemeyer, D., (Hrsg.): 337–372.

Mahoney, J./ Goertz, G. (2004): The Possibility Principle: Choosing Negative Cases in Qualitative Research. In: American Political Science Review 98/4: 653–670.

Mahoney, J./ Rueschemeyer, D. (Hrsg.) (2003): Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge.

Markoff, J. (1990): A Comparative Method: Reflections on Charles Ragin’s Innovations in Comparative Analysis. In: Historical Methods 23/4: 177–181.

Miethe, T.D./ Drass, K.A. (1999): Exploring the Social Context of Instrumental and Expressive Homicides: An Application of Qualitative Comparative Analysis. In: Journal of Quantitative Criminology 15/1: 1–21.

Moses, J./ Rihoux, B./ Kittel, B. (2005): Mapping Political Methodology: Reflections on a European Perspective. In: European Political Science-EPS 4/1: 55–68.

Nelson, K. (2004): The Last Resort. Determinants of the Generosity of Means-tested Minimum Income Protection in Welfare Democracies. COMPASSS Working Paper 2004-21.

Nomiya, D. (2001): Minsyuu no hanran to shakai hendou: rekishiteki deita heno ouyou [Peasants’ rebellion and social change: Application [of QCA] to historical data]. In: Kanomata, N./ Nomiya, D./ Hasegawa, K. (Hrsg.): 79–94.

Obinger, H./ Wagschal, U. (Hrsg.) (2000): Der “gezügelte“ Wohlfahrtsstaat: Sozialpolitik in Australien, Japan, Schweiz, Kanada, Neuseeland and den Vereinigten Staaten. Frankfurt/M.

Pawson, R./ Tilley, N. (1997): Realistic evaluation. London and Thousand Oaks.

Peillon, M. (1996): A Qualitative Comparative Analysis of Welfare Legitimacy. In: Journal of European Social Policy 6/3: 175–190.

Popper, K. (1963): Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge. London.

Przeworski, A./ Teune, H. (1970): The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. New York.

Ragin, C.C. (1987): The Comparative Method. Moving Beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. Berkeley.

Ragin, C.C. (1997): Turning the Tables: how Case-oriented Methods Challenge Variable-oriented Methods. In: Comparative Social Research 16: 27–42.

Ragin, C.C. (2002): Préfacé. In: De Meur, G./ Rihoux, B. (Hrsg.): 11–14.

Ragin, C.C. (2004): La place de la comparaison: jalons pour la recherche comparative configurationnelle. In: Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 11/1: 118–129.

Ragin, C.C. (2006a): The limitations of net-effects thinking. In: ai]Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 13–41.

Ragin, C.C. (2006b): Set Relations in Social Research: Evaluating Their Consistency and Coverage. In: Political Analysis 14: 291–310.

Ragin, C.C./ Becker, H. (1992): What is a case? Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. Cambridge.

Ragin, C.C./ Berg-Schlosser, D./ De Meur, G. (1996): Political methodology: qualitative methods. In: Goodin, R.E./ Klingemann, H-D. (Hrsg.): 749–768.

Ragin, C.C./ Bradshaw, Y.W. (1991): Statistical Analysis of Employment Discrimination: A Review and a Critique. In: Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 10: 199–228.

Ragin, C.C./ Rihoux, B. (2004a): Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): State of the Art and Prospects. In: Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualita-tive Methods 2/2: 3–13.

Ragin, C.C./ Rihoux, B. (2004b): Replies to Commentators: Reassurances and Rebuttals. In: Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 2/2: 21–24.

Ragin C.C./ Sonnett, J. (2004): Between Complexity and Parsimony: Limited Diversity, Counterfactual Cases, and Comparative Analysis. COMPASSS Working Paper 2004-23.

Ragin C.C./ Strand, S. (2005), Using QCA to Study Causal Order: Comment on Caren and Panofsky (2005), COMPASSS Working Paper 2007-45.

Rihoux, B. (2001): Les partis politiques: organisations en changement. Le test des écologistes. Paris.

Rihoux, B. (2003): Bridging the Gap Between the Qualitative and Quantitative Worlds? A Retrospective and Prospective View on Qualitative Comparative Analysis. In: Field Methods 15/4: 351–365.

Rihoux, B./ De Meur, G./ Yamasaki, S./ Ronsse, S. (2004). Ce n’est qu’un début, continuons le... débat. Un agenda pour la recherche. In: Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 11/1: 145–153.

Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.) (2006): Innovative Comparative Methods for Policy Analysis. New York.

Rihoux, B./ Ragin, C. (Hrsg.) (2008, forthcoming): Configurational comparative methods. Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques. Thousand Oaks and London.

Romme, A.G.L. (1995): Boolean Comparative Analysis of Qualitative Data: A Methodological Note. In: Quality and Quantity 29/4: 317–329.

Roscigno, V.J./ Hodson, R. (2004): The Organizational and Social Foundations of Worker Resistance. In: Ameri-can Sociological Review 69/1: 14–39.

Rudel, T.K./ Roper, J. (1996): Regional Patterns and Historical Trends in Tropical Deforestation, 1976-1990: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis. In: Ambio 25/3: 160–166.

Rueschemeyer, D./ Stephens, J.D. (1997): Comparing historical sequences — a powerful tool for causal analysis. A reply to John Goldthorpe’s “current issues in comparative macrosociology“. In: Comparative Social Research 16: 55–72.

Sager, F. (2004): Metropolitan Institutions and Policy Coordination: The Integration of Land Use and Transport Policies in Swiss Urban Areas. In: Governance: An International Journal of Policy, Administration and Insti-tutions 18/2:227–256.

Schneider, C./ Wagemann, C. (2006). Reducing complexity in Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors and the consolidation of democracy. In: European Journal of Political Research 45/5: 751–786.

Schneider, C./ Wagemann, C. (2007): Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) und Fuzzy Sets. Ein Lehrbuch für Anwender und jene, die es werden wollen. Opladen & Farmington Hills.

Seawright, J. (2004): Qualitative Comparative Analysis vis-a-vis Regression. In: Qualitative Methods: Newsletter of the American Political Science Association Organized Section on Qualitative Methods 2/2: 14–17.

Skaaning, Sven-Erik (2006): Democracy Besides Elections: An Inquiry into (Dis)Respect for Civil Liberty in Latin American and Post-Communist Countries After the Third Wave. University of Aarhus (Ph.D. dissertation).

Sprinz, D.F./ Nahmias-Wolinsky, Y. (Hrsg.) (2004): Models, Numbers and Cases: Methods for Studying International Relations. Ann Arbor.

Stephens, J.D. (1998): Historical Analysis and Causal Assessment in Comparative Research. In: APSA-CP, News-letter of the APSA Organized Section in Comparative Politics 9/1: 22–25.

Stevenson, W.B./ Greenberg, D. (2000): Agency and Social Networks: Strategies of Action in a Social Structure of Position, Opposition, and Opportunity. In: Administrative Science Quarterly 45/4: 651–678.

Swyngedouw, M. (2004): Review of: “L’analyse Quali-Quantitative Comparée (AQQC-QCA)“ (G. De Meur and B. Rihoux, 2002). In: European Sociological Review 20/2: 161–162.

Tashakkori, A./ Teddlie, C. (Hrsg.) (2003): Handbook of Mixed Methods in the Social and Behavioral Research. Thousand Oaks.

Vanderborght, Y./ Yamasaki, S. (2004): Des cas logiques ... contradictoires? Un piège de l’AQQC déjoué à travers l’étude de la faisabilité politique de l’Allocation Universelle. In: Revue Internationale de Politique Comparée 11/1:51–66.

Varone, F./ Rihoux, B./ Marx, A. (2006): A new method for policy evaluation? Longstanding challenges and the possibilities of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA). In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.): 213–236.

Watanabe, T. (2003): Where Theory and Reality Meet: Using the full Potential of QCA by Exploiting the Intersec-tion Function of the QCA Software. International Comparison Analysis about the Occurence of Social Movement. In: COMPASSS Working Paper 2003-13.

Williams, L.M./ Farrell, R.A. (1990): Legal Response to Child Sexual Abuse in Daycare. In: Criminal Justice and Behavior 17/3: 284–302.

Yamasaki, S. (2003): Testing Hypotheses with QCA: Application tond the Nuclear Phase-out Policy in 9 OECD countries. Paper presented at the 2 ECPR General Conference, Marburg.

Yamasaki, S./ Spreitzer, A. (2006): Beyond methodological tenets. The worlds of QCA and SNA and their benefits to policy analysis. In: Rihoux, B./ Grimm, H. (Hrsg.) 95–120.

Yonetani, M./ Ishida, ndA./ Kosaka, K. (2003): Determinants of Linguistic Human Rights Movements. Paper presented at the 2 ECPR General Conference, Marburg.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Département des Sciences Politiques et Sociales, Université Catholique de Louvain, Belgium

Benoît Rihoux

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Editor information

Rights and permissions.

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2009 VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften | GWV Fachverlage GmbH, Wiesbaden

About this chapter

Rihoux, B. (2009). Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) and related techniques: recent advances and challenges. In: Pickel, S., Pickel, G., Lauth, HJ., Jahn, D. (eds) Methoden der vergleichenden Politik- und Sozialwissenschaft. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_18

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-91826-6_18

Publisher Name : VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften

Print ISBN : 978-3-531-16194-5

Online ISBN : 978-3-531-91826-6

eBook Packages : Humanities, Social Science (German Language)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

36 Qualitative Comparative Analysis

• Published: March 2024
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

This chapter introduces qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) as a set-theoretic comparative method aimed at identifying necessary and sufficient relations, with a focus on modeling causal complexity and an orientation toward explaining outcomes. While a relatively young method, QCA has established itself as a main methodological tool in the social sciences and beyond. On par with its spread across disciplines in terms of application, the methodology behind QCA has also continued to develop and become more robust and sophisticated. This chapter provides an overview of the basic building blocks of what a QCA is and when to use it, and how a QCA works in practice; it also points the reader to the state-of-the-art developments for building a solid QCA that goes beyond its basic analytic steps.

Signed in as

Institutional accounts.

• Google Scholar Indexing
• GoogleCrawler [DO NOT DELETE]

Personal account

• Sign in with email/username & password
• Get email alerts
• Save searches
• Purchase content
• Activate your purchase/trial code

Institutional access

• Sign in with a library card Sign in with username/password Recommend to your librarian
• Institutional account management
• Get help with access

Access to content on Oxford Academic is often provided through institutional subscriptions and purchases. If you are a member of an institution with an active account, you may be able to access content in one of the following ways:

IP based access

Typically, access is provided across an institutional network to a range of IP addresses. This authentication occurs automatically, and it is not possible to sign out of an IP authenticated account.

Sign in through your institution

Choose this option to get remote access when outside your institution. Shibboleth/Open Athens technology is used to provide single sign-on between your institution’s website and Oxford Academic.

• Click Sign in through your institution.
• Select your institution from the list provided, which will take you to your institution's website to sign in.
• When on the institution site, please use the credentials provided by your institution. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.
• Following successful sign in, you will be returned to Oxford Academic.

If your institution is not listed or you cannot sign in to your institution’s website, please contact your librarian or administrator.

Sign in with a library card

Enter your library card number to sign in. If you cannot sign in, please contact your librarian.

Society Members

Society member access to a journal is achieved in one of the following ways:

Sign in through society site

Many societies offer single sign-on between the society website and Oxford Academic. If you see ‘Sign in through society site’ in the sign in pane within a journal:

• Click Sign in through society site.
• When on the society site, please use the credentials provided by that society. Do not use an Oxford Academic personal account.

If you do not have a society account or have forgotten your username or password, please contact your society.

Sign in using a personal account

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members. See below.

A personal account can be used to get email alerts, save searches, purchase content, and activate subscriptions.

Some societies use Oxford Academic personal accounts to provide access to their members.

Viewing your signed in accounts

Click the account icon in the top right to:

• View your signed in personal account and access account management features.
• View the institutional accounts that are providing access.

Signed in but can't access content

Oxford Academic is home to a wide variety of products. The institutional subscription may not cover the content that you are trying to access. If you believe you should have access to that content, please contact your librarian.

For librarians and administrators, your personal account also provides access to institutional account management. Here you will find options to view and activate subscriptions, manage institutional settings and access options, access usage statistics, and more.

Our books are available by subscription or purchase to libraries and institutions.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Rights and permissions
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Comparative Analysis of Qualitative And Quantitative Research

2019, M.Lib.I.Sc. Project, Panjab University, under guidance of Dr. Shiv Kumar

There's no hard and fast rule for qualitative versus quantitative research, and it's often taken for granted. It is claimed here that the divide between qualitative and quantitative research is ambiguous, incoherent, and hence of little value, and that its widespread use could have negative implications. This conclusion is supported by a variety of arguments. Qualitative researchers, for example, have varying perspectives on fundamental problems (such as the use of quantification and causal analysis), which makes the difference as such shaky. In addition, many elements of qualitative and quantitative research overlap significantly, making it difficult to distinguish between the two. Practically in the case of field research, the Qualitative and quantitative approach can't be distinguished clearly as the study pointed. The distinction may limit innovation in the development of new research methodologies, as well as cause complication and wasteful activity. As a general rule, it may be desirable not to conceptualise research approaches at such abstract levels as are done in the context of qualitative or quantitative methodologies. Discussions of the benefits and drawbacks of various research methods, rather than general research questions, are recommended.

Related Papers

Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung Forum Qualitative Social Research

Margrit Schreier

Fernando Almeida

Scientific research adopts qualitative and quantitative methodologies in the modeling and analysis of numerous phenomena. The qualitative methodology intends to understand a complex reality and the meaning of actions in a given context. On the other hand, the quantitative methodology seeks to obtain accurate and reliable measurements that allow a statistical analysis. Both methodologies offer a set of methods, potentialities and limitations that must be explored and known by researchers. This paper concisely maps a total of seven qualitative methods and five quantitative methods. A comparative analysis of the most relevant and adopted methods is done to understand the main strengths and limitations of them. Additionally, the work developed intends to be a fundamental reference for the accomplishment of a research study, in which the researcher intends to adopt a qualitative or quantitative methodology. Through the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each method, it becomes possible to formulate a more accurate, informed and complete choice.

IRJET Journal

Research design methods, such as qualitative, quantitative as well as mixed methods were introduced and subsequently each method was discussed in detail with the help of literature review as well as some personal and live examples to substantiate the findings of various literature. From various literature as well as from the own experiences, it is concluded that both qualitative research design method and quantitative research design method are equally important. It is not fair to criticize one method as the researcher is inclined towards the other method. It is practically evidenced that usage of both methods in the research, the researcher can substantiate the case better. However, duration part while using mixed methods to be kept in mind as it will take more time compared to the qualitative and quantitative methods. Hurrying and aborting in the middle due to time constraint ultimately result in poor research. It would be better if the world view towards these methods changes from criticizing mode to effective utilization mode, which will help research community in focusing and bring up better research outcomes rather than wasting time in arguing which method is scientifically acceptable and which method is biased. While I agree that the ontological, epistemological, axiological, and methodological assumptions for qualitative research method and quantitative research method, researchers should know fully about these methods and keep them as effective tools to utilize them in mixed mode, wherever it is appropriate and required to arrive at adequate research findings.

iosrjournals.org

UNICAF University - Zambia

Ivan Steenkamp

Gregoire Nleme

In this paper, as a practitioner, I describe quantitative and qualitative inquiries. I explain some of their differences and similarities. I emphasize most important differences that researchers should consider when selecting one of the methods or when running a mixed study. I list differences in worldviews, research design, research processes, reliability assurance, and validity assurance. I propose a process flowchart for each type of inquiry. The purpose of the essay is to give researchers and primarily doctorate students a review of differences and similarities between the two methods of inquiry.

Ziabur Rahman

Munyaradzi Moyo

Marta Costa

International Journal of Social Research Methodology

Julia Brannen

RELATED PAPERS

Zbornik radova Građevinskog fakulteta

Veljko Pujevic

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Texto Livre: Linguagem e Tecnologia

Fátima Franco

MedieKultur: Journal of media and communication research

Lennard Højbjerg

Noris Salazar Allen

European Journal of Business and Management

Emmanuel E. Daferighe

Anales de la Facultad de Medicina

Juan Seminario

The Annals of Thoracic Surgery

Mark Stoler

Diagnostic Cytopathology

Maria Lynn Alfieri

Sustainability

Marco Raugei

ALGERIAN JOURNAL OF NATURAL PRODUCTS

Bolanle Saliu

World Neurosurgery: X

Duranka Perera

Ksiegarnia Akademicka Publishing eBooks

Barbara Konwerska

Chemical Physics Letters

Huyền Nguyễn

ACR North American Advances

Teresa Heath

Godfred Tsotorvor

Lesbia Fernandez Martinez

Angewandte Chemie

Faustin Kamena

Nelson Pouca

Thư Nguyễn Ngọc Minh

"Vi har enats om att kraftigt minska invandringen till Sverige" - En kritisk diskursanalys av migrationspolitiska reformer

Alexandra Ahlén

Anesthesia & Analgesia

Lawrence Tsen

Journal of the Brazilian Chemical Society

Antonia Lucia Santos

British Poultry Science

Frank André Maurice Tuyttens

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Open access
• Published: 30 April 2024

A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law

• Sylvia Martin 1 ,
• Mirko Ancillotti 1 ,
• Santa Slokenberga 2 &
• Amal Matar 1 , 3  

BMC Medical Ethics volume  25 , Article number:  48 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

136 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt’s new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients.

We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws.

On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones.

The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Science relies on research to move forward and enhance knowledge. Different research areas deploy at different levels of human subjects’ involvement, from qualitative and non-interventional research methods to biomedical research and medical validation procedures. While virtually all research has ethical implications, clinical research calls for special attention, and it is widely agreed that it should be conducted according to more stringent ethical principles than other types of research [ 1 ]. To facilitate appropriate ethical implementation of research, it is imperative for ethical regulations to be receptive to the advancements in the field. The well-being of participants is a fundamental condition of research emphasized by the principles outlined worldwide in renowned ethical texts like the Belmont Report (cited in [ 2 ] Footnote 1 ), and the Helsinki Declaration (see [ 3 ] Footnote 2 ). These core principles include ensuring participants' entitlement to minimize harm and discomfort [ 2 ], as well as safeguarding their rights against exploitation [ 4 ].

For assessing whether the ethical requirements are fulfilled, and to ensure that international standards are respected, as it has been proposed by Artal & Rubenfeld [ 5 ], 2017, it is essential account for specific principles developed in the field. Research conduct that seemed legitimate to the men of science in the past is abhorrent to the contemporary conscience [ 6 ]. Ethical standards also depend on where they apply. Different societies, with their specific traditions and cultures, have systems of values and norms that may only partly coincide with research ethics principles informing international standards. Hence, there could be a gap between what is culturally acceptable and what is compliant with international ethics standards. However, the risk of ethical colonialism and its biases, may be difficult to avoid, as it can be considered factual that many international documents heavily rely on the Western perspective [ 7 ].

While cognizant of this, a few documents can be considered ethical reference points, such as the above-mentioned Belmont Report and the Helsinki Declaration for the protection of human participants in medical research [ 8 ]. Another influential example is the Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research from Emanuel et al. [ 9 , 10 ]. The Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research has heavily influenced the ethics work of leading institutions such as the Department of Health (DoH, South Africa Footnote 3 ) and Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS). In research ethics, the framework has often been used to assess the functioning of ethical review committees and the ethical adequacy of legal regulations of research involving human subjects (see [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]). This ethical framework, rooted in major Western philosophical traditions but not explicitly aligned with any specific school of thought, enables the authors to formulate a set of principles that resonates with a broad consensus, accommodating diverse moral intuitions and beliefs.

Regulatory framework implementation in the new settings offers a great chance to explore what the most recent bioethical laws are (like for the BRICS countries in [ 14 ]). In this regard, the Egyptian Bioethical law from 2020 can be considered as an innovative example for other countries in the process of implementing bioethical regulations and improved bioethical education across the world [ 15 , 16 , 17 ].

As Egypt is considered an LMIC by the World Bank [ 18 ], yet a “high growth pharmaceutical market”, the country has become one of the most attractive locations for pharmaceutical companies to outsource their clinical trials. The country, with over 100 million inhabitants, provides a noteworthy example of implementing bioethical laws in a context with predominantly treatment-naive patients and a robust medical infrastructure encompassing public hospitals and healthcare professional representation.

The aim of the present paper is to analyze and discuss from an ethical perspective the new Egyptian clinical trial law. The Egyptian law is analyzed and discussed in relation to the Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research by Emanuel et al. [ 9 , 10 ], and in comparison to selected other national and supranational laws.

One of the recent countries adopting bioethical law to regulate clinical human subject research is Egypt, which enforced its first law on clinical trials in the official journal on December 23rd, 2020. The issuance of the law, which has long been in the making, was hastened by the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgency to carry out vaccine trials among the Egyptian population [ 19 ]. This regulation is part of a broader effort to enhance the respect for civil/human rights in the country. In 2022, the recent reports from the US Embassy still pointed out some issues [ 20 ], raising concern about fairness and equity in the whole society, and impacting ethical procedures in health and research. However, Egypt -as a United Nations member since 1945- has been participating in the global initiative to enhance human rights application [ 21 ]. Like other Arabic countries (Jordan, Saudi Arabia) registered in the UN Watch Database, it needed to justify their application of human rights [ 22 ]. Efforts are made to improve ethical skills among health care givers in Egypt. For example, EL-Khadry et al. [ 23 ], assessed the effect of educational intervention on knowledge and attitude towards research, research ethics, and biobanks among Egyptian paramedical and administrative teams. Egypt has witnessed exponential growth in medical research like in many developing countries, driven by the pressing need to improve healthcare [ 24 ]. Egypt held the 37th position in terms of publication volume in 2023 [ 25 ]. It is worth noting that in 2020, Egypt had only 838 researchers per million inhabitants, in stark contrast to the USA’s 4,821 researchers per million inhabitants (in 2019) and the United Arab Emirates’ 2,443 researchers per million inhabitants (Researchers in R&D (per million people) [ 26 ] representing the medium position compared to of BRICS countries like South Africa (484 researcher per million habitants) or China (1,585).

National examples: France and Sweden

On the national level, France and Sweden hold a long tradition of ethical regulation. French law influenced the structuring of the Egyptian legal system in 1875. Later, reforms were made to the Egyptian civil law under the guidance of a French legal expert Édouard Lambert in the 1930-the 1940s [ 27 ]. We selected France as a study focus due to its historical ties and influence on Egypt's regulatory framework. Additionally, for comparative analysis with another high-income Western nation, Sweden was chosen for its renowned status as a research leader, distinct from any historical connections with Egypt.

Northern European countries are still considered to be leading countries in research (Sweden is the 3 rd country in terms of research and development expenditures (% of GDP) after Israel and Korea in 2020 – [ 28 ] and have a long tradition of bioethics practices and reflections (e.g., Helsinki’s declaration in 2000 [ 29 ]). Specifically, Sweden is included in the study as an example of a Nordic country with an evidence-based culture of health policymaking [ 30 ] and constant interest for ethical inquiry in under-researched vulnerable populations [ 31 , 32 , 33 ]. In 2004, Sweden enforced “The Act concerning the Ethical Review of Research Involving Humans” (SFS nr: 2003:460) that sharpened ethical review procedures for biomedical research way earlier than other countries (e.g. Loi Jardé in France from 2012, and the Egyptian law 2020), introducing a reference that showcased innovative law in the early 2004 that remains in effect. In 2020, France had 4926 researchers per million inhabitants, quite comparable to the USA’s 4,821 researchers per million inhabitants (in 2019) and representing a European example of a “medium” score of researchers per million inhabitants. In comparison, Sweden counts for 7,930 researcher per a million inhabitant, Norway 6,699, Finland 7,527 or Denmark with 7,692 (Researchers in R&D (per million people) [ 34 ]. At the international level, France ranked at the 6 th position for publication volume, while Sweden ranked the 18 th [ 35 ].

Supra-national entity: the EU regulations to consider when considering France and Sweden

Supra-national European regulations play an important role in the legal system of EU countries even if such a supra-national level does not exist in Egypt. At the EU level, the EU Regulation on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use (CTR) governs the ethical review of clinical trials, however detailed aspects of ethics committees and ethical review depend on further regulation at Member State level. This means that even though the EU regulates ethical review of clinical trials in the CTR, there could be considerable divergences across Europe in how the committees are set up and perform their tasks. To begin with, the CTR requires that a clinical trial be subject to ethical review (Article 4), and it outlines several relevant aspects of the process of carrying out that review. However, modalities regarding ethical committee and its work are a question of the Member States’ regulation. Generally, the application for authorisation to conduct a clinical trial is divided into two parts. Part I focuses on the technical-scientific dimension, and part II on the ethical aspects which are reviewed by each member state concerned. An ethics committee, within the meaning of the CTR, is an independent body established in a Member State in accordance with the law of that Member State Footnote 4 . Under the national law, this body needs to be empowered to give opinions for the purposes of the CTR, considering the views of laypersons, in particular patients or patients’ organizations (Art. 2(2)(11)). The CTR prescribes in Recital 18 merely a guiding requirement that the member state needs to ensure that “the necessary expertise is available”. Member States should have a mechanism in place to ensure the involvement of laypersons, in particular patients or patients’ organisations. However, the effect of this involvement that the CTR requires is that their views are taken into account in the review (Art. 2(2)(11)). It is not uncommon that several ethics committees exist in a member state. How the involvement of an ethics committee is organized for the purposes of the tasks specified in the CTR is a question for the Member States to decide (recital 18). However, the process needs to be organized so that the relevant timelines of the clinical trials approvals set out in the CTR are met (Art. 4).

Design and data analysis

We examine the Egyptian law vis-à-vis France’s and Sweden’s framework, considering the obligations that stem in regards to clinical trials from the CTR. Furthermore, we examine these regulations in light of the Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research by Emanuel et al. [ 9 , 10 ]. Indeed, we will consider the EU implication into France and Sweden’s regulations.

A directed approach to qualitative content analysis was adopted using the seven principles informing the Ethical Framework for Biomedical Research as predetermined themes [ 36 ]. Two independent coders examined each selected regulation in their original version for French (MA, SM), Swedish (MA, AM), EU (MA, AM), and in an English translation for the Egyptian law (AM, SM). The coders discussed the results critically in debriefing sessions and their coding was discussed until consensus with a legal expert working with ethical regulations at the international level (SS) contributing the clarification of EU and both Swedish and French framework.

Theoretical framework

The seven principles that will serve as comparison criteria for our analysis are the following: “ (1) (Social) value - enhancements of health or knowledge must be derived from the research; (2) scientific validity- the research must be methodologically rigorous; (3) fair subject selection - scientific objectives, not vulnerability or privilege, and the potential for and distribution of risks and benefits, should determine communities selected as study sites and the inclusion criteria for individual subjects; (4) favorable risk-benefit ratio-within the context of standard clinical practice and the research protocol, risks must be minimized, potential benefits enhanced, and the potential benefits to individuals and knowledge gained for society must outweigh the risks; (5) independent review - unaffiliated individuals must review the research and approve, amend, or terminate it; (6) informed consent - individuals should be informed about the research and provide their voluntary consent; and (7) respect for enrolled subjects -subjects should have their privacy protected, the opportunity to withdraw, and their well-being monitored. ” (Emanuel et al., 2000, p2701 [ 9 ]).

For a thorough assessment, we exclusively examined the primary text of each law, excluding connections to other regulations (e.g., the "Code de la Santé" and "Code Penal" for French regulation or to “Law No. 151 of 2019, the Egyptian Medicines Authority” for the Egyptian text). Our analysis utilized the latest version of the law, including any amendments. These are:

Egypt’s law – no amendments December 23 rd , 2020, Law No. 214 of 2020 Regulating Clinical Medical Research.

French law : the “Loi Jardé” (LOI n° 2012-300 du 5 mars 2012 relative aux recherches impliquant la personne humaine) amended with the “Décret n° 2016-1537 du 16 novembre 2016 ”. We will consider the latest 2022 amendment for reference in our analysis.

Swedish law : Lag (2003:460) om etikprövning av forskning som avser människor with the following amendments: 2018:147, 2018:1092, 2019:1144, 2021:611, 2022:48.

Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 April 2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, and repealing Directive 2001/20/EC Text with EEA relevance OJ L 158, 27.5.2014, p. 1–76.

These laws have been identified for being the main relevant legal texts for biomedical research regulations and more specifically research involving human subjects. The selection of national and international regulations to assess was based on their presence within international pharmacological and biomedical research industry. Moreover, the EU regulation will be considered as an adjunct line of analysis to complement Swedish and French regulation examination as both countries are part of EU.

The full overview of coding procedure for all regulation is available as supplementary material (see Tables 1 , 2 and Appendix 1 ). A summary of this assessment is presented in Table 1 with a score system showing the compliance or absence of compliance to each principle. A score of 0 means there is little to no compliance with the criteria, while an X indicates satisfactory or complete compliance with the criteria.

• Social value

Egyptian law does not overtly address the social value of the research proposal. However this may be implied as the national Research Ethics Committee (REC Footnote 5 ) (Supreme Council) will take into account “national interest” when evaluating research protocols (Chapter (ch) 3, article (art) 7(2)).

Similarly, the Ethical Review Act, has no clauses that are focused on assessing the social value of research. However, the notion of research serving a social interest is implicitly demonstrated by the composition of the departmental REC, where five members out of 15 represent society’s interests (Section 25). In Section 8, it is indeed stated that the welfare of research participants must be prioritized over the needs of society.

France also lacks a clear statement on the social value. The law relates to “social” level as it often refers to the “Code de la santé” (CS) and to the “social security” system, but no clear points about social values per se. Social and scientific value is stated in the “Research organized and carried out on human beings to develop biological or medical knowledge shall be authorized“ (Art. L1121-1 CS).

Under the CTR, social value – enhancement of health – is the whole purpose, even if not expressis verbis stated, Art. 3 and Art. 6 ensure that as a general principle, (a) the rights, safety, dignity, and well-being of subjects are protected and prevail over all other interests; and (b) it is designed to generate reliable and robust data for example. Moreover, member state and Union inspections are envisaged (taking compliance with the EU regulation as a token of good research for society and for science). See Art. 78 and 79.

Scientific validity

Regarding Scientific validity, Egyptian law set up the responsibility of REC to ensure ethical quality (Art. 1, Art. 2, Art. 24) of the accepted protocols, but also set up standards for scientific quality (Art. 7; 2; Ch. 2 Art. 10) making sure that principal investigators have the required scientific competences (Ch. 5 Art. 22; Ch. 3 Art. 6 provided a detailed list of required competences §2, Ch. 4 Art. 9.).

The Swedish law emphasizes the importance of sound research. In Section 11, it is stated that research may only be approved if it is carried out by/under the supervision of a researcher with the necessary scientific competence. In Section 9, where the scientific value of the proposed research is weighed against, and if proportionate justifies, the risks to the health, safety, and personal integrity of research participants.

Article L1121_2 expresses the need for social and scientific validity. Art. L 1121-3 refers to “qualified personnel” for scientific validity and after the approval has been given by a REC. RECs have a regional organization and can be involved together with Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL) for data security issues, and Committee of Experts for Research Study and Evaluation in Health domain. Any research is also regulated by EU rules (Article L1121-1 CS). Specific regulations for certain disciplines are stated in the CS (L1121-3) but not in the Loi Jardé.

At the EU level, Art. 4 requires prior authorization. In particular, a clinical trial shall be subject to scientific and ethical review and shall be authorized in accordance with the rules set out in the CTR. Under Article 6(1)(b)(i) the reliability and robustness of the data generated in the clinical trial, taking account of statistical approaches, design of the clinical trial and methodology, including sample size and randomization, comparator, and endpoints.

Fair selection of study population

The Egyptian law ensures the impartial selection of an appropriate number of research participants. There are specific recommendations for REC in regards to recruitment of specific sub-groups or vulnerable population. For example, prohibit research participants to enroll in simultaneous medical research and prohibit induced participation (Ch. 5 Art. 13; 14).

There are no definite clauses in the considered law that emphasize the requirement for fair selection of the study population. Nonetheless, protection of minors and individuals who cannot consent to research participation is described in Sections 18, 20, 21, and 22 (see Informed consent section).

French regulation requires that study participants be beneficiaries of the Social Security system (and if not, they will be considered as if they are). Fair selection of the participants is ensured by the CS (Articles L. 1121-5 to L. 1121-8). The main categories with stated protection are adults in coma, with dementia or for psychiatric conditions, or enfeebled patient, people deprived of their freedom, foreigners, minors, pregnant and nursing women. Moreover, situations such as “urgency” that may override any consent needed.

Art. 10 offers “specific considerations for vulnerable populations”, in particular, minors (see Art. 32), incapacitated subjects (see more Art. 31, 28, 29), pregnant or breastfeeding women (see Art. 33), the participation of specific groups or subgroups of subjects, where appropriate, specific consideration shall be given to the assessment of the application for authorization of that clinical trial on the basis of expertise in the population represented by the subjects concerned. Art. 34 also covers national measures for participants performing mandatory military service, persons deprived of liberty, persons who, due to a judicial decision, cannot take part in clinical trials, or persons in residential care institutions.

Favorable risk-benefit ratio

Clear specifications of the Principal investigator requires all the consideration about risk-benefit ratio (both at the physical and psychological level), ensuring dignity and health, adding a note for specific attention to reducing side effects (Art. 18; 6). Another layer of risk reduction is the provision to evaluate preclinical medical research (Ch. 5 Art. 10), the provision of health insurance coverage of any research participant (Ch. 7 Art. 18 §9), and ensuring that the research organization will be able to attend properly to research participants’ health needs in case adverse effects or health risks ensuing from the clinical trial (Ch. 11).

According to the Swedish legislation, the necessary condition for approving research is that fundamental personal freedoms, and human rights are respected. While Section 9 states that research may be approved if its scientific value outweighs the risks to research participants, Section 8 specifies that their welfare must be prioritized over the needs of society and science. Section 10 states that research should be conducted only if its expected result cannot be achieved in another way that involves less risk to the health, safety, and personal integrity of research participants.

Favorable benefit-risk ratio was refined with the inclusion of “new facts” issues that appeared with Loi Jardé. The most important point to emphasize is that the sponsor will be responsible for the care and necessary costs ensued from severe side effects, if they occur. These include both biomedical research (R1) as well as interventional minimal risk research (R2).

Art. 6 ensures that risks (minimization, safety measures) and inconveniences for the subject are considered and reduced for medicinal products and interventions compared to normal clinical practice. Suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions and annual reporting are strictly regulated at the EU level. Under the CTR, the committees are informed regarding suspected unexpected serious adverse reactions that are reported pursuant to the CTR as well as the annual report submitted to the European Medical Agency (Art. 44.3).

Independent review

Independent review will be implemented by a REC (Art. 1, 24), and it will protect the rights of participants, review the research protocol, decide on approval, amendments or renewal of the research, and lastly monitor the research (All this is in accordance to the executive regulations of law art 8). The specifics of the review process are detailed in several articles (Ch. 2 Art. 4: REC; Ch. 3 Art 1 to 4).

According to Section 6, independent review is mandatory whenever the research involves a physical intervention or involves affecting or risk harming the research participant physically or psychologically. Independent review is also required in the case of studies involving biological material taken from a living person and can be traced to that person. The same article emphasizes the principal investigator’s responsibility, who must take measures to prevent research from being carried out in violation of the law. Section 25 sets out the organization of the authority providing an independent review, i.e., the Ethics Review Authority. This is divided into operational regions, each composed of one or more departments according to their areas of expertise. Departments consist of a chairman, who is or has been an ordinary judge, and fifteen other members, of whom ten have scientific competence and five represent public interests, including at least one member who represents one or more patient organizations. The government appoints the chairman and its deputy, while the Ethics Review Authority chooses the other members and their deputies.

The independent review component is well established with the composition of the Committee for the Protection of Persons and the presence of 39 RECs across the 7 inter-regions committees. The repartition of REC into 2 colleges, one more scientific and the second more patient-related, support independent review, but the designation and recruitment of different REC members (depending on the national or local level, for example) is not clear. For the local levels (Art L1123-1), the text state that the Health Minister CPP for a fixed or undetermined duration and according to the needs. Their members are appointed by the Director General of the regional health agency in which the committee has its headquarters. The committees are completely independent in the performance of their duties. They have legal entity under public law. Committee resources are provided by the State. However, ethical approval can be obtained via institutional committees (in house at some hospitals and universities). Member of the National commission for research involving human need to declare their conflicts of interest (Art. L1123-1-1) which is not clarified for CPP (promotors of the same institution are – per definition- applying to their “in house” ethical committee).

Art. 4 refers to the need for prior authorization in accordance with the law of the Member State concerned Footnote 6 . The review by the ethics committee may encompass aspects addressed in Part I of the assessment report for the authorization of a clinical trial as referred to in Article 6 and in Part II of that assessment report as referred to in Article 7 as appropriate for each Member State concerned. Article 9 should ensure that the persons validating and assessing the application do not have conflicts of interest, are independent of the sponsor, of the clinical trial site and the investigators involved and of persons financing the clinical trial, as well as free of any other undue influence. A special mention explains that at least one layperson shall participate in the assessment.

Informed consent (IC)

Among the very first articles (Art. 1; 21), Egypt’s law provides a definition of IC, promoting its engagement into this ethical procedure “the written expression based on complete voluntary freewill of the person with full legal capacity, and it includes his explicit consent as a signature and a fingerprint to participate in clinical medical research, after all aspects of the research are explained to him, and in particular the potential effects or harms that may impact his/her decision to participate[…]”. The exception of obtaining IC is detailed in executive regulations (Ch. 5, Art. 12; 3). More specific consideration is also represented in other sections of the law: in Ch. 7 Art. 17 § 2: obtaining IC is mandatory. In Ch. 10, Art. 23 §2, IC is required for data usage and for further research. Furthermore it provides specification for consent of data usage.

Section 17 states that, in line of principle, research can only be performed if the research participant has voluntarily and explicitly consented in a documented way after receiving adequate and specific information. Section 16 describes what the fundamental pieces of information are. In cases where a research participant is in a dependent relationship with components of the research team or if the research participant has difficulties asserting their right, Section 14 states that issues of information and consent must be given special attention. Specific recommendations are provided in the case of minors or if the research participants turned 15 years (Section. 18). Sections 20, 21, and 22 list under what circumstances research can be performed without consent (illness, mental disorder, a weakened state of health, or any other similar condition of the research participant prevents their consent from being obtained).

IC regulations state that “Consent is free, informed and (voluntary) emphasizing the importance of individuals providing explicit agreement in various legal situations. It must be written for category 1 studies and may be oral for category 2 studies (but must be recorded in the medical file). For category 3 research and for studies on data collected in the course of normal care, the rule is that the patient “must not object.” No research mentioned in 1° of Art. L. 1121-1 may be carried out on a person without his or her free IC, given in writing after the person has been provided with the relevant information. Where it is impossible for the person concerned to express his or her consent in writing, it may be attested by the trusted support person provided for in Art. L. 1111-6, by a family member, or, failing this, by one of the person's close relations, provided that this trusted person, family member or close relation is independent of the investigator and the sponsor. Specific recommendations are provided for minors (under 18 solely). Article 4 is also providing details about the case where the participant cannot express consent and is not under guardianship. There are also options for “collective consent,” but they are only available for interventional research with minimal risk (epidemiologic search).

Art. 7 mentions the need for compliance with the requirements for IC as set out in Art. 29, explicating the regulations about written IC. A specific regulation has also been dedicated in Art. 30 for cluster trials. This specification states that “Where a clinical trial is to be conducted exclusively in one Member State, that Member State may, without prejudice to Art. 35, and by way of derogation from points (b), (c), and (g) of Art. 28(1), Art. 29(1), point (c) of Art. 29(2), 29(3), (4) and (5), points (a), (b) and (c) of Art. 31(1) and points (a), (b) and (c) of Art. 32(1), allow the investigator to obtain IC by the simplified means set out in paragraph 2 of this Article, provided that all of the conditions set out in paragraph 3 of this Article are fulfilled.”

Respect for participants

Egyptian law provides protection of privacy and data (Art. 12; 2), adequate information of researcher participants (Art,.15; 2. Ch. 5; Art 18:5), protection from publicity (Art. 15;3) together with a straightforward explanation of requirements to respect withdrawal of consent (Art. 2, 1) and compensation aspects (Art. 20:9, 10). The details of non-induced participation (for money or reward) could also be understood as a measure of respect for recruited participants (Art. 14).

Section 1 states that its purpose is to protect the individual and respect human dignity in research. This is reaffirmed under Section 7. Noteworthy, according to Section 40, some exceptions can be made with regards to requiring consent or processing of data if this is requested by the government or another authority. This is only possible if it is clear that the research does not entail any appreciable risk to an individual's health or safety or pose an infringement on an individual's integrity.

The respect for study participants was unclear in the text and focuses more on fair selection and risk protection of research participants. One specific element regarding the participant protection of “a deceased person, in a state of brain death, without his or her consent expressed during his or her lifetime or through the testimony of his or her family” (Art. L1125-13).

Article 28 prescribes general rules that must be met for a clinical trial to be lawfully conducted. This article clarifies that benefit to the participants, IC, right to mental and physical integrity, minimal pain or risk, guaranteed medical care, and no undue influence (including financial) are the basis for any medical research. EU regulation Article 28 of Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Article 2 make sure that withdrawal is free of constraints and will not have repercussions nor affect the participants' rights and care, but also makes sure that the withdrawal of consent does not affect the data collected prior to withdrawal.

Our results show that the Egyptian law fulfills the ethical requirements for human subject research and is comparable to the French, Swedish and EU regulations.

Detailing the results, we also observed that all regulations tended to have a very vague approach to “social values and scientific values” (principle 1). In terms of the fair selection of participants, the Swedish text was probably the vaguest (principle 3), but in general, this principle appeared to be well integrated. All other principles also were well represented in Egyptian law as in the French, Swedish, and EU’s laws (principles 4, 5, 6, 7). We explore in two separate points the results :1) Value and validity (in which principles 1, 2 and 5, with 5 as the way/procedure to reach value and validity), 2) Participant’s protection (principles 3, 4, 6, and 7).

Values and scientific validity

Principle 1, social values and scientific value.

Egyptian regulation suffers from the same issues in clarifying the social value aspect as French, Swedish, and EU regulation. The results from the assessment of social values reveal that most of the regulations struggle to clearly define under what specifications research should serve a social purpose. Social value is often envisioned at the level of cost-effectiveness measurements, and its definition may be difficult to normalize across states and cultures as it refers to “the general concept and practice of measuring social impacts, outcomes, and outputs through the lens of cost” [ 37 ]. In Emanuel et al’s vision, it is composed of the a) ensured benefit b) value for the prospective beneficiaries, c) dissemination of the results via long-term collaborative strategy d) avoiding to undermine the community’s existing healthcare [ 38 ]. Furthermore, these results question the importance of social value in research per se, for example, in specific areas where the social value aspect cannot be considered as an overarching guide. Recent debates questioned, for example, the justice and egalitarian arguments that can arise from questioning the social value of research [ 39 , 40 ] depending on how innovative and impactful on a societal level the research is.

Principle 2, Scientific validity

Egyptian law, French, Swedish, and EU regulation, tries to specify the scientific validity mostly via their REC members selection. The general implementation of a control mechanism and ethical review board’s competences question the real level of expertise or education that these members do have in order to review research protocols or scientific methods. For example, there is not a clear consensus about the need for specific competencies in order to have balanced and non-biased decisions in ethical vetting because [ 41 ] as different ethical reviewers will raise different concerns. In their results, they confirmed that the main influencing factor in readers-queries was the profession, with scientific validity issues being more frequently asked by scientific reviewers, whereas ethical issues were more frequently pointed out by ethicists.

Depending on the system and general community functioning, the selection of research ethics committees members can put into question the non-biased nature of assessment of scientific validity. For instance, in France, the members of the Nation Ethical Committee, who are responsible for offering direction to all REC, are "selected" or "designated" by the President of France. The same question could also be raised in Egypt were Central intelligence members are sitting at the National REC (the Supreme Council). The impact of politics and social politics in presumably non biased procedure is also rising with the use of preference studies to inform policy making and including patient’s advocacy in decisions boards as it can have a role in decision makings [ 42 ] providing advances in shared decision making but also leveraging non-biased decisions making as there is still not a unified definition of such processes [ 43 ] and for example, research shows that methodological standards are often downgraded to provide access to the co-researchers [ 44 ].

As it is sometimes defined in science in general, validity should be assessed in an adequate manner across medical field. Scientists refer to scientific quality measures (like in systematic literature review assessements scales for scientific quality) but validity interpretation can be difficult to apprenhend for an heterogeneous group of experts (like an REC). In its very classical definition “The validity of a research study refers to how well the results among the study participants represent true findings among similar individuals outside the study. This concept of validity applies to all types of clinical studies, including those about prevalence, associations, interventions, and diagnosis”, scientific validity could look easy to apprehend but even then, just having the precision “The validity of a research study includes two domains: internal and external validity” explain the layer of complexity that may not be represented in Emanuel’s principles definition [ 45 ]. Going further into the validity explanation and use in ethical consideration in biomedical research should be warranted. For example, some research look at different levels of validity to clarify what one considers as validity (scientific validity may be too vague to refer to permit clear assessment): congruence validity, criterion validities, etc [ 46 ]). Wages et al. in 2021 [ 47 ], showed the potential for using operating characteristics to inform design’s safety and accuracy in phase I clinical trials that could open the debate around a better definition of scientific validity checks in biomedical research. One part of the issue comes from scientific communities but the scientific validity should be also a matter of concerns for all REC members. The competencies of any participants should be addressed in the REC reviewer’s selection as some questions also arise from the medical field where shared decision-making has been implemented before and some debate remains about the representativeness of patients that do get involved in the medical decision-making [ 48 , 49 ].

Principle 5, Independent review

All ethical regulations, including Egypt’s, ensure that the review system is independent and thus RECs have the power to authorize, follow up and end any research to protect participants [ 29 ]. One of the major concerns still not addressed in the regulations is the difficulty to guarantee REC effectiveness in regards to some deficiencies in REC theory and structure [ 50 ]. The opportunities to enhance EC efficiency and effectiveness could also depend more on the researcher and the scientific community as Hickey et al., 2022 suggested [ 51 ]. Clarifying the collaborative approach across ethics committees and research can be the path to increased medical research efficiency.

Participant’s protection

Principle 3, fair selection.

In the Egyptian regulation, the fair selection of participants is pursued, which can be considered a positive development with respect to the previous regulation proposal, where protection of the rights and welfare of vulnerable subjects were not adequately considered [ 52 ]. Generally, one can wonder about the impact of fairness when recruiting for clinical trials. Ongoing discussions emphasize that the fair selection of participants could be a very ethically challenging issue as it is a ground for dilemmas [ 53 ], including the levels of “(1) fair inclusion; (2) fair burden sharing; (3) fair opportunity; and (4) fair distribution of third-party risks”. The equal opportunity issue also arose for example in 2022 when French law integrated EU requirements and shifted toward allowing research participants with no access to social security to be part of research [ 54 ], offering extended opportunities for participation but putting the question of fairness of selection into question.

Principle 4, Favorable risk-benefit ratio

Egyptian regulation, like the four other comparatives, consider “Risk-benefit” as a sine qua none principle and the clarity of Helsinki’s declaration [ 55 ]. However, no regulation mentioned the potential for under-reporting harms depending on what one considers to be “harm”. One of the aspects that are often under-considered is psychological harm, as even clinical trials in the field tend not to report psychological harm (compared to physical adverse effects of drugs in clinical trials) as can be noted in research by [ 56 , 57 ].

Principle 6, Informed consent

Informed consent is implemented overall, and as for principle 5, Egypt complies, like all comparatives to this standard practice. Even if a variety of informed consent exists, the law sticks to written consent without specifying the potential for renewed consent, broad consent, or other approaches [ 58 ] and the “blanket consent” potential.

Principle 7, Respect for recruited participants and study communities

Respect for participants reflects respecting autonomy across health care and research systems that appear to be consistent across the 4 regulations. Egyptian law places an equivalent emphasis on this principle as French law and is comparable to Swedish and EU regulation. All these regulatory frameworks effectively incorporate this principle into their bioethical laws. Heightened attention still needs to be paid to respect at different levels, such as for gender issues [ 59 ], or/and ethnicity [ 60 , 61 ].

Limitations

Our study contains limitations. The first one is that we looked for expressis verbis statements that limit the apprehension of the full corpus of laws application in a specific context. Indeed, some implicit references could counterbalance our conclusions. For instance, the CTR underscores the overarching objective of promoting the social value by enhancing health, even if not explicitly stated. Nevertheless, at the clinical level, practitioners may not have comprehensive access to all regulations and are likely to rely on referenced texts in the ethical application specific to their country. The lack of clarity (or complex implicit references) may hinder comprehension and result in a complex implementation process. Utilizing the principles proposed by Emanuel et al. may also be presented as a limitation as this analytical foundation may not comprehensively encapsulate the nuances inherent in the examined legal frameworks. Another limitation could be posited in the fact that the analysis may not fully reflect the influence of cultural and social variations among the three countries. Further research would need to also assess the overall structure of ethical procedure in each country and their organization (from Supreme councils, regional entities, national unified procedures, etc).

In conclusion, the Egyptian law in comparison to French, Swedish, and the connected EU regulations reveals its alignment with Emanuel et al.’s principles. However, several common challenges and areas of improvement can be sought with regards to each of the ethical principles and thus open the way for further research. The main topic identified via our analysis is the need to clarify and standardize the concept of social value of research, which often focuses on cost-effectiveness measurements and implicitly -not always directly- refers to a very difficult concept to apply [ 62 ]. Our second main discussion point highlights concern about the expertise and unbiased decision-making of ethical review boards. Further research is warranted to explore in more detail’s other principles. Overall, these findings highlight the need for continuous improvement and refinement of ethical regulations to ensure the protection of participants and the integrity of research in Egypt and other jurisdictions.

Based on the discussion, the following recommendations can be made for improving research ethics regulations in the countries in our analysis:

Clarify and Standardize Social Value: Develop clear guidelines and standards to define and measure the social value of research across different states and cultures. This should include a detailed framework for assessing research's contribution to societal benefits, cost-effectiveness, and its alignment with the long-term healthcare goals of the community.

Enhance Scientific Validity: Strengthen the criteria for the selection of Research Ethics Committee (REC) members to ensure they possess the necessary expertise and education to review research protocols and scientific methods effectively. This includes establishing more rigorous competency requirements and providing ongoing training to ensure balanced and non-biased decision-making in ethical approvals.

Improve Participant Protection: Emphasize the fair selection of participants by addressing ethical challenges and ensuring equitable opportunities for participation. This involves revising existing regulations to better protect the rights and welfare of vulnerable subjects and to promote fairness in participant selection.

Increase REC Effectiveness: Address deficiencies in REC theory and structure to enhance the effectiveness of research ethics committees. This could involve adopting more collaborative approaches between review boards and researchers, and ensuring that ethics committees have the authority, independence, competences and resources needed to oversee research effectively.

Promote Respect for Participants: Ensure that all research activities respect the autonomy and dignity of participants. This entails paying heightened attention to issues of gender, ethnicity, and other factors that may affect participants' experiences in research settings.

Further Research: Encourage further research into the nuances of ethical principles beyond those identified by Emanuel et al., to better understand the cultural and social variations that may affect the implementation of ethical guidelines in different jurisdictions and cultural contexts.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

US Department of Health and Human Services. (1979). The Belmont Report: Office of the Secretary, Ethical Principles and Guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects of Research, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research.

« World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects »,  JAMA , vol. 310, n o  20,‎ 27 novembre 2013, p. 2191–2194

Department of Health. (2015). Ethics in health research: Principles, processes and structures.

The composition of the ethics committees remains to be decided by a member state.

In France, the REC acronym coul refer more to the High National Ethical Committee, which issues recommendations on a societal scale. It is important to note that this committee is distinct from the day-to-day oversight of research ethical applications or clinical trials. The latter responsibility primarily falls within the purview of internal ethical committees situated within hospitals or universities, which have the authority to grant approvals. Externally, the (Comité de Protection des Personnes or CPP) serves as the most pertinent entity, akin to a Research Ethical Committee (REC); hence, we have opted to utilize the acronym REC for clarity.

The effect of the decision is, nonetheless, strong. Where an ethics committee has issued a negative opinion, on the condition that rules that are valid for the entire Member State apply, that Member State has a duty to refuse to authorise a clinical trial (Article 8.4, for extended authorisations see Article 14.10, for substantial modifications for the assessment report, see Articles 19, 20 and 23).

Abbreviations

Code de la santé / Health code

Research Ethics Committee

Clinical trial regulations

Low to medium income country

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés / national commission for computer science and freedoms

French specific will stand for

Comité de Protection des personnes / person’s protection committee

Informed consent

Dooly M, Moore E, Vallejo C. Research ethics. Research-publishing net. 2017.

Google Scholar  

Miracle VA. The Belmont Report: the triple crown of research ethics. Dimens Crit Care Nurs. 2016;35(4):223–8.

Article   Google Scholar  

Halonen JI, Erhola M, Furman E, Haahtela T, Jousilahti P, Barouki R, et al. The helsinki declaration 2020: Europe that protects. Lancet Planetary Health. 2020;4(11):e503–5.

Johansen MV, Aagaard-Hansen J, Riis P. Benefit–a neglected aspect of health research ethics. Dan Med Bull. 2008;55(4):216–8.

Artal R, Rubenfeld S. Ethical issues in research. Best Pract Re Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2017;43:107–14.

Paul H. The scientific self: reclaiming its place in the history of research ethics. Sci Eng Ethics. 2018;24(5):1379–92.

Thaldar D, Shozi B, Kamwendo T. Culture and context: Why the global discourse on heritable genome editing should be broadened from the South African perspective. BioLaw Journal-Rivista Di BioDiritto. 2021;4:409–16.

World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191-4.

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. What makes clinical research ethical? Jama. 2000;283(20):2701–11.

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Grady C. An ethical framework for biomedical research. The Oxford textbook of clinical research ethics. 2008. p. 123–35.

Book   Google Scholar  

Rid A, Emanuel EJ. Ethical considerations of experimental interventions in the Ebola outbreak. Lancet. 2014;384(9957):1896–9.

Tsoka-Gwegweni JM, Wassenaar DR, Using the Emanuel, et al. framework to assess ethical issues raised by a biomedical research ethics committee in South Africa. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2014;9(5):36–45.

Mutenherwa F, Wassenaar DR, de Oliveira T. Ethical issues associated with HIV phylogenetics in HIV transmission dynamics research: a review of the literature using the Emanuel Framework. Dev World Bioeth. 2019;19(1):25–35.

Mantzaris E. Regulatory frameworks as a tool for ethical governance: drawing comparisons amongst the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) countries. Afr J Public Affairs. 2017;9(8):91–104.

Sim JH, Ngan OMY, Ng HK. Bioethics education in the medical programme among Malaysian medical schools: where are we now? J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2019;6:2382120519883887.

de Lemos Tavares ACAL, Travassos AGA, Rego F, Nunes R. Bioethics curriculum in medical schools in Portuguese-speaking countries. BMC Med Educ. 2022;22(1):199.

Mukhamedzhanovna MZ, Akmalovna U, Nugmanovna M. The Uzbek Model of Bioethics: History and Modernity. Malim: jurnal pengajian umum asia tenggara (SEA Journal of General Studies). 2020;21.

Bank W. 2023a [Available from: https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519 .

Marzouk D, Sharawy I, Nakhla I, El Hodhod M, Gadallah H, El-Shalakany A, et al. Challenges during review of COVID-19 research proposals: experience of faculty of medicine, Ain Shams university research ethics committee, Egypt. Front Med. 2021;8:715796.

State USDo. 2022 [Available from:  https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-country-reports-on-human-rights-practices/ .

Migiro. [Available from: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/when-did-egypt-gain-itsindependence.html .

H S. United Nations Human Rights Council and Israel: Comparative Analysis with Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia (Doctoral dissertation, University Honors College Middle Tennessee State University). 2021.

EL-Khadry SW, Abdallah AR, Yousef MF, M. abdeldayem H, Ezzat S, Dorgham LS. Effect of educational intervention on knowledge and attitude towards research, research ethics, and biobanks among paramedical and administrative teams in the National Liver Institute, Egypt. Egyptian Liver Journal. 2020;10:1-8.

Normile D. The promise and pitfalls of clinical trials overseas. Science. 2008;322(5899):214–6.

SJR [Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php .

Bank W. 2023b [Available from:  https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?end=2017&locations=EG&start=2007 .

Chaaban Y. Comparative law as a critical tool for legal research in Arab countries: a comparative study on contractual balance. Akkad J Law Public Policy. 2021;1(3):123–34.

Bank W. 2023c [Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=SE&most_recent_value_desc=true .

Guraya SY, London N, Guraya SS. Ethics in medical research. J Microscopy Ultrastructure. 2014;2(3):121–6.

Hansson MG, Dillner J, Bartram CR, Carlson JA, Helgesson G. Should donors be allowed to give broad consent to future biobank research? Lancet Oncol. 2006;7(3):266–9.

Norberg Wieslander K, Höglund AT, Frygner-Holm S, Godskesen T. Research ethics committee members’ perspectives on paediatric research: a qualitative interview study. Res Ethics. 2023;19(4):494–518.

Gallagher B, Berman AH, Bieganski J, Jones AD, Foca L, Raikes B, et al. National human research ethics: a preliminary comparative case study of Germany, Great Britain, Romania, and Sweden. Ethics Behavior. 2016;26(7):586–606.

Harcourt D, Quennerstedt A. Ethical guardrails when children participate in research: risk and practice in Sweden and Australia. Sage Open. 2014;4(3):2158244014543782.

Bank W. 2023d [Available from: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.POP.SCIE.RD.P6?end=2017&locations=EG&start=2007 .

Scimago Journal and Country Rank [Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php .

Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-88.

Tuan MT. Measuring and/or estimating social value creation: Insights into eight integrated cost approaches: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Seattle, WA; 2008.

Emanuel EJ, Wendler D, Killen J, Grady C. What makes clinical research in developing countries ethical? The benchmarks of ethical research. J Infect Dis. 2004;189(5):930–7. https://doi.org/10.1086/381709 .

Juth N. For the sake of justice: should we prioritize rare diseases? Health Care Analysis. 2017;25:1–20.

Juth N, Henriksson M, Gustavsson E, Sandman L. Should we accept a higher cost per health improvement for orphan drugs? A review and analysis of egalitarian arguments. Bioethics. 2021;35(4):307–14.

Haaser T, Bouteloup V, Berdaï D, Saux M-C. The multidimensional nature of research ethics: letters issued by a French research ethics committee included similar proportions of ethical and scientific queries. J Empirical Res Hum Res Ethics. 2022;17(3):242–53.

Groot BC, Vink M, Haveman A, Huberts M, Schout G, Abma TA. Ethics of care in participatory health research: mutual responsibility in collaboration with co-researchers. Educ Action Res. 2019;27(2):286–302.

Bomhof-Roordink H, Gärtner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019;9(12):e031763.

Malterud K, Elvbakken KT. Patients participating as co-researchers in health research: a systematic review of outcomes and experiences. Scandinavian J Public Health. 2020;48(6):617–28.

Patino CM, Ferreira JC. Internal and external validity: can you apply research study results to your patients? Jornal brasileiro de pneumologia. 2018;44:183.

Larsen KR, Lukyanenko R, Mueller RM, Storey VC, VanderMeer D, Parsons J, et al., editors. Validity in design science research. Designing for Digital Transformation Co-Creating Services with Citizens and Industry: 15th International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, DESRIST 2020, Kristiansand, Norway, December 2–4, 2020, Proceedings 15; 2020: Springer.

Wages NA, Horton BJ, Conaway MR, Petroni GR. Operating characteristics are needed to properly evaluate the scientific validity of phase I protocols. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;108:106517.

Arora NK, McHorney CA. Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate? Medical Care. 2000:335-41.

Lindsay SE, Alokozai A, Eppler SL, Fox P, Curtin C, Gardner M, et al. Patient preferences for shared decision making: not all decisions should be shared. J Am Acad Orthopaedic Surgeons. 2020;28(10):419.

Whitney SN. Institutional review boards: a flawed system of risk management. Res Ethics. 2016;12(4):182–200.

Hickey A, Davis S, Farmer W, Dawidowicz J, Moloney C, Lamont-Mills A, et al. Beyond criticism of ethics review boards: strategies for engaging research communities and enhancing ethical review processes. J Acad Ethics. 2021:1-19.

Silverman H, Edwards H, Shamoo A, Matar A. Enhancing research ethics capacity in the Middle East: experience and challenges of a Fogarty-sponsored training program. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2013;8(5):40–51.

MacKay D, Saylor KW. Four faces of fair subject selection. Am J Bioeth. 2020;20(2):5–19.

Pace C, Miller FG, Danis M. Enrolling the uninsured in clinical trials: an ethical perspective. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(3):S121–5.

Association WM. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

Duggan C, Parry G, McMurran M, Davidson K, Dennis J. The recording of adverse events from psychological treatments in clinical trials: evidence from a review of NIHR-funded trials. Trials. 2014;15(1):1–9.

Jonsson U, Alaie I, Parling T, Arnberg FK. Reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials of psychological interventions for mental and behavioral disorders: a review of current practice. Contemp Clin Trials. 2014;38(1):1–8.

Hansson SO, Björkman B. Bioethics in Sweden. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 2006;15(3):285–93.

Cameron JJ, Stinson DA. Gender (mis) measurement: Guidelines for respecting gender diversity in psychological research. Soc Personal Psychol Compass. 2019;13(11):e12506.

Braddock CH III. Racism and bioethics: the myth of color blindness. Am J Bioeth. 2021;21(2):28–32.

Truong M, Sharif MZ. We’re in this together: a reflection on how bioethics and public health can collectively advance scientific efforts towards addressing racism. J Bioeth Inq. 2021;18(1):113–6.

Habets MG, van Delden JJ, Bredenoord AL. The social value of clinical research. BMC Med Ethics. 2014;15(1):1–7.

Download references

Acknowledgements

Sylvia Martin (SM) and Amal Matar (AM) conceived of the presented idea. SM, AM and Mirko Ancillotti (MA) developed the theory and performed the computations. SM, AM, MA, and Santa Slokenberga (SS) verified the analytical methods and discussed the results. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, final analysis and manuscript. None of the authors have competing interest to declare.

Open access funding provided by Uppsala University.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Center for Research and Bioethics, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Sylvia Martin, Mirko Ancillotti & Amal Matar

Department of Law, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Santa Slokenberga

Clinical Immunology and Transfusion Medicine Department, Uppsala University Hospital, Uppsala, Sweden

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Sylvia Martin (SM) and Amal Matar (AM) conceived of the presented idea. SM, AM and Mirko Ancillotti (MA) developed the theory and performed the computations. SM, AM, MA, and Santa Slokenberga (SS) verified the analytical methods and discussed the results. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, final analysis and manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sylvia Martin .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate.

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Competing interests.

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: appendix 1..

Comparative table with references to law texts.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Martin, S., Ancillotti, M., Slokenberga, S. et al. A comparative ethical analysis of the Egyptian clinical research law. BMC Med Ethics 25 , 48 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01040-0

Download citation

Received : 15 November 2023

Accepted : 26 March 2024

Published : 30 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-024-01040-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Biomedical laws
• Ethical principles
• Clinical trials

BMC Medical Ethics

ISSN: 1472-6939

• General enquiries: [email protected]

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

This article is part of the research topic.

Use of AR/MR/VR in the Context of Occupational Safety and Health

Visual Perception and User Satisfaction in Video See-through Head-mounted Displays: A Mixed-methods Evaluation Provisionally Accepted

• 1 University of California, San Diego, United States
• 2 Qualcomm (United States), United States

The final, formatted version of the article will be published soon.

Objective:Our study addresses the challenges limiting the adoption of Extended Reality (XR) Head-Mounted Displays (HMDs), mainly focusing on device quality and cybersickness. We aim to investigate the impact of hardware and software on user experience and task performance while wearing Video See-Through (VST) HMDs. We employ a novel methodology designed to bridge the gaps identified in previous research. Methods: This study uses a convergent mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data in a within-subjects evaluation involving 20 participants. This comprehensive evaluation examines visual perception, visual quality, and user experience through a range of tasks. Usability, comfort, and cybersickness are assessed, with insights derived from both user performance metrics and subjective measures collected through in-depth interviews and comments. The study includes three distinct HMDs—two prototypes (PD1 and PD2) and one commercial device (CD1)—to provide a broad analysis of the technology. Findings: Our findings reveal that while participants were generally satisfied with VST mode, their preferences varied across devices. CD1 was preferred for its realistic color representation and superior reading task performance due to its high-resolution display and camera. However, visual disturbances and temporal issues differed across devices, with CD1 exhibiting fewer artifacts when stationary but showing more disturbances when participants were moving. Participants found PD1 and PD2 more comfortable for extended use and fewer cybersickness symptoms, but they highlighted color and display resolution issues. These variations underscore the importance of considering both qualitative and quantitative measures in HMD evaluations. Conclusion: This mixed-methods evaluation emphasizes the limitations of relying solely on visual perception performance measures for VST HMDs. By integrating both quantitative and qualitative insights, we offer a more detailed evaluation framework to identify design flaws and user experience issues that quantitative metrics alone might miss. This methodology contributes to the field by illustrating how a mixed-methods approach provides a broader perspective on XR technology, guiding future improvements and enhancing VST adoption in future applications.

Keywords: Video see-through, video pass-through, Extended Reality, User Experience, Cybersickness, user satisfaction, mixed-methods evaluation

Received: 11 Jan 2024; Accepted: 01 May 2024.

Copyright: © 2024 De Souza and Tartz. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

* Correspondence: Mx. Jessica De Souza, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States

People also looked at