scholarly journals Relative solidarity: Conceptualising communal participation in genomic research among potential research participants in a developing Sub-Saharan African setting

PLoS ONE ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. e0195171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olubunmi Ogunrin ◽  
Kerry Woolfall ◽  
Mark Gabbay ◽  
Lucy Frith
2015 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 827-842
Author(s):  
Anya E.R. Prince ◽  
John M. Conley ◽  
Arlene M. Davis ◽  
Gabriel Lázaro-Muñoz ◽  
R. Jean Cadigan

The growing practice of returning individual results to research participants has revealed a variety of interpretations of the multiple and sometimes conflicting duties that researchers may owe to participants. One particularly difficult question is the nature and extent of a researcher’s duty to facilitate a participant’s follow-up clinical care by placing research results in the participant’s medical record. The question is especially difficult in the context of genomic research. Some recent genomic research studies — enrolling patients as participants — boldly address the question with protocols dictating that researchers place research results directly into study participants’ existing medical records, without participant consent. Such privileging of researcher judgment over participant choice may be motivated by a desire to discharge a duty that researchers perceive themselves as owing to participants. However, the underlying ethical, professional, legal, and regulatory duties that would compel or justify this action have not been fully explored.


2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 399
Author(s):  
Casey Overby Taylor ◽  
Natalie Flaks Manov ◽  
Katherine D. Crew ◽  
Chunhua Weng ◽  
John J. Connolly ◽  
...  

There is a need for multimodal strategies to keep research participants informed about study results. Our aim was to characterize preferences of genomic research participants from two institutions along four dimensions of general research result updates: content, timing, mechanism, and frequency. Methods: We conducted a web-based cross-sectional survey that was administered from 25 June 2018 to 5 December 2018. Results: 397 participants completed the survey, most of whom (96%) expressed a desire to receive research updates. Preferences with high endorsement included: update content (brief descriptions of major findings, descriptions of purpose and goals, and educational material); update timing (when the research is completed, when findings are reviewed, when findings are published, and when the study status changes); update mechanism (email with updates, and email newsletter); and update frequency (every three months). Hierarchical cluster analyses based on the four update preferences identified four profiles of participants with similar preference patterns. Very few participants in the largest profile were comfortable with budgeting less money for research activities so that researchers have money to set up services to send research result updates to study participants. Conclusion: Future studies may benefit from exploring preferences for research result updates, as we have in our study. In addition, this work provides evidence of a need for funders to incentivize researchers to communicate results to participants.


2011 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
P Foumane ◽  
E T Mboudou ◽  
J S Dohbit ◽  
S Mbakop Ndingue ◽  
P M Tebeu ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 392-396
Author(s):  
B Moifo ◽  
M Ndeh Kamgnie ◽  
N Fuh Fointama ◽  
J Tambe ◽  
H Tebere ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 96 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. A4-A4 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. J. Gladstone ◽  
S. A. White ◽  
G. Kafulafula ◽  
J. Neilson ◽  
N. Van den Broek

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 203
Author(s):  
Edwin Chukwuemeka Idoko ◽  
Stephen Ikechukwu Ukenna ◽  
Mercy Ejovwokwoghene Ogbari

2012 ◽  
Vol 423 ◽  
pp. 210-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nagla Gasmelseed ◽  
Afrah Awad Elsir ◽  
Pasquale DeBlasio ◽  
Ida Biunno
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document