SEARCH’s HBNC trial: towards a broader debate on the ethics of social intervention research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The SEARCH home-based neonatal care (HBNC) trial generated a heated debate amongst health activists, researchers and demographers in India upon its publication in the Lancet in 1999. More than a decade after the Lancet article, a new debate has been sparked, this time on the ethics of the study. Against this backdrop, we identify three key questions which require in-depth discussion. First, was the choice of the study design (cluster nonrandomised control trial), appropriate given the circumstances relating both to the study site and the locale? Second, was it ethical not to offer any intervention to the control units given that a known treatment existed? Third, do contemporary research ethics guidelines satisfactorily address all the ethical issues related to the study design? This paper examines the first question. We draw three main conclusions from this critical appraisal of the HBNC trial. First, the study design of the trial is motivated by the paradigm of evidence-based programmes and policy formulation. Second, generally speaking, the HBNC study design passes the internal and external validity tests but raises important ethical questions. Third, these questions transcend the HBNC trial to apply to many other social and health interventions studies; as such, the HBNC trial should be studied as a paradigmatic case.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.097 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.034 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".