Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kaawa-Mafigiri D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10330227 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study.
Kaawa-Mafigiri David D Ekusai Sebatta Deborah D Munabi Ian I Mwaka Erisa Sabakaki ES
Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE 20230507 3
Numerous ethical, legal, and social issues arise with biological sample sharing. The study explored the perspectives of genetic and genomic researchers on the sharing of biological samples in international collaborative research. Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers. Participants expressed positive attitudes towards biobanking and appreciated the benefits of cross-border sharing of biological samples but noted that this practice had adversely affected local capacity ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Genomic and biobanking research has increased in Africa over the past few years. This has raised pertinent ethical, legal, and societal concerns for stakeholders such as sample or data ownership, commercialization, and benefit sharing. There is limited awareness of the concept of benefit sharing by stakeholders in sub-Saharan Africa. Objective: This study aimed to explore the perceptions of researchers and research ethics committee members on benefit sharing in international collaborative genomic and biobanking research. Methods: Qualitative in-depth interviews were conducted with 15 researchers and 19 research ethics committee members. A thematic approach was used to interpret the results. Results: Six themes emerged from the data and these included perceptions on the benefits of genomic and biobanking research; discussion of benefit sharing with participants during the informed consent process; legal implications of benefit sharing and the role of material transfer agreements; equity and fairness in sharing the benefits of genomic research; perceived barriers to fair benefit sharing; and recommendations for fostering fair and equitable benefit sharing in genomic and biobanking research. Most respondents clearly understood the various forms of benefits of genomic and biobanking research and opined that such benefits should be fairly and equitably shared with low and middle-income country researchers and their institutions, and research communities. The perceived barriers to the fair benefit sharing unfavorable include power disparities, weak research regulatory frameworks, and lack of scientific integrity. Conclusion: Overall, respondents believed that the distribution of the advantages of genomic and biobanking research in North-South collaborative research was not equitable nor fair, and that the playing field was not leveled. Therefore, we advocate the following for fair and equitable benefit sharing: Building the capacities and empowering research scientists in developing nations; strengthening regulatory frameworks and extending the purview of the research ethics committee in the development and implementation of material transfer agreements; and meaningfully involving local research communities in benefit sharing negotiations.
| S-EPMC9714451 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is a plethora of unanswered ethical questions about sharing incidental findings in genetics and genomics research. Yet understanding and addressing such issues is necessary for communicating incidental findings with participants. We explored researchers' perspectives and experiences regarding feedback of incidental genomics findings to participants.MethodsThis was a qualitative study using semi-structured interview schedules for In-depth interviews. Thirty respondents were purposively selected based on role as genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis to identify emerging themes using a comprehensive thematic matrix. QSR International NVivo software was used to support data analysis.Resultsa). On perceptions, sharing of incidental findings was acceptable and four themes emerged including role of professional judgement; role of ethics committees and ethical guidelines; optimal disclosure practices; limits to professional duty and uncertainty and; b). on practices, sharing had been carried out by some researchers and a theme on experience and practices emerged.ConclusionFeedback of incidental genomics research findings to participants is generally acceptable to researchers. Some researchers. Challenges include lack of ethical guidelines and uncertainty about the findings.
| S-EPMC9423610 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGenerally, there is unanimity about the value of community engagement in health-related research. There is also a growing tendency to view genetics and genomics research (GGR) as a special category of research, the conduct of which including community engagement (CE) as needing additional caution. One of the motivations of this study was to establish how differently if at all, we should think about CE in GGR.AimTo assess the perspectives of genetics and genomics researchers in Uganda on CE in GGR.MethodA cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted at Makerere University and Uganda Virus Research Institute. Twenty-five individuals participated, the majority being male (sixteen). Participants included nineteen genetics and genomics researchers (researchers and research coordinators), two CE officers, three nurses and one nursing counsellor. Data were collected using in-depth interviews and analyzed in a thematic manner using NVivo version 12 Plus.Study findingsThirteen of the respondents had conducted CE in their GGR in either a geographical and disease-specific community. Some respondents said CE principles are the same and there is no need for special consideration for CE in GGR. Others gave ethical issues in GGR that require special consideration for CE in such research and these were categorized into six themes: GGR is new to communities, Difficulty in communicating GGR by the researchers, Genes are shared in communities, Cultural sensitivities against GGR, Community attitude toward GGR, Some GGR studies take long to end, and Negotiation of research benefits. Special considerations for CE when conducting GGR were suggested and categorized into seven themes: creating awareness of GGR in communities, obtaining both community acceptance and individual consent, CE team composition, involve communities in solving GGR challenges, prolong CE in some GGR, develop guidelines for CE in GGR, and legal considerations on GGR.ConclusionGGR was characterized by special issues that require special CE considerations for such research.
| S-EPMC10763360 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe return of genetics and genomics research results has been a subject of ongoing global debate. Such feedback is ethically desirable to update participants on research findings particularly those deemed clinically significant. Although there is limited literature, debate continues in African on what constitutes appropriate practice regarding the return of results for genetics and genomics research. This study explored perspectives and ethical considerations of Ugandan genomics researchers regarding the return of genetics and genomics research results.MethodsThis was a qualitative study that employed in-depth interviews. Thirty participants were purposively selected based on their expertise as genomics researchers in Uganda. Data were analysed through content analysis along the main themes of the study using a comprehensive thematic matrix, to identify common patterns arising from the narratives. NVivo software 12 was used to support data analysis.ResultsThe return of genetics and genomics research results was generally acceptable to researchers, and some indicated that they had previously returned individual or aggregate results to participants and communities. The main reasons cited for sharing research results with participants included their clinical utility, actionability and overall benefit to society. Ethical considerations for appropriate return of results included a need for effective community engagement, genetic counselling prior to disclosure of the results, adequate informed consent, and proper assessment of the implications of, or consequences of returning of results. However, the approaches to return of results were perceived as unstandardized due to the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks.ConclusionsThe return of genetic and genomic research results is generally acceptable to researchers despite the lack of appropriate regulatory frameworks. Ethical considerations for return of genetics and genomics research results are highly divergent, hence the need for national ethical guidelines to appropriately regulate the practice.
| S-EPMC8603565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Results-sharing with participants or their communities after the completion of research is an essential element of ethical research. The main objective of this study was to identify and document current practice of trial result dissemination, to explore attitudes among trialists towards result dissemination and to better understand previous experiences and barriers to returning results to participants. This mixed-methods study used a sequential exploratory design with two phases: i) an initial qualitative phase to explore the topic and to inform the quantitative data collection, ii) a quantitative survey. Findings from the survey and interviews were triangulated and presented to a network of clinical malaria researchers for validation. A total of 11 semi-structured interviews (SSIs) were conducted using an interview guide. The quantitative survey had a response rate of 19.9% (42/211). Disseminating results to participants after clinical trials was deemed critical for ethical malaria related research, with 38.1% indicating it as extremely important and 45.2% rating it as mostly important. Most respondents referred to the dissemination of results to policymakers and wider stakeholders as important aspects of research translation. The practice of patient or community engagement was prioritized in the pre-trial period and during the trial for obvious instrumental goals of improving retention, coverage and adherence, but much less priority was given to the post-trial period. The main reason for poor dissemination practice was the notion that the time lag between study participation and the availability of results was too long (42.4%). Other reasons included the assumption that the community was not interested (36.4%), and financial restraints (9.1%). The rich qualitative data revealed detailed accounts of operational, cultural, educational and economic aspects that pose further barriers to results-sharing, including limited knowledge about best practice. Better planning which includes adequate financial resourcing is required for meaningful dissemination of results to study participants. Improved institutional guidance and more stringent requirements by funders could support researchers who are generally interested and willing to complete the process. Best practice methods to conduct such dissemination remains to be explored.
| S-EPMC10479888 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Meaningful engagement of Alaska Native (AN) tribes and tribal health organizations is essential in the conduct of socially responsible and ethical research. As genomics becomes increasingly important to advancements in medicine, there is a risk that populations not meaningfully included in genomic research will not benefit from the outcomes of that research. AN people have historically been underrepresented in biomedical research; AN underrepresentation in genomics research is compounded by mistrust based on past abuses, concerns about privacy and data ownership, and cultural considerations specific to this type of research. Working together, the National Human Genome Research Institute and two Alaska Native health organizations, Southcentral Foundation and the Alaska Native Health Board, cosponsored a workshop in July 2018 to engage key stakeholders in discussion, strengthen relationships, and facilitate partnership and consideration of participation of AN people in community-driven biomedical and genomic research. AN priorities related to translation of genomics research to health and health care, return of genomic results, design of research studies, and data sharing were discussed. This report summarizes the perspectives that emerged from the dialogue and offers considerations for effective and socially responsible genomic research partnerships with AN communities.
| S-EPMC7708301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The data ecosystem is complex and involves multiple stakeholders. Researchers and scientists engaging in data-intensive research collect, analyse, store, manage and share large volumes of data. Consequently, capturing researchers' and scientists' views from multidisciplinary fields on data use, sharing and governance adds an important African perspective to emerging debates. We conducted a descriptive cross-sectional survey and received 160 responses from researchers and scientists representing 43 sub-Saharan African countries. Whilst most respondents were satisfied with institutional data storage processes, 40% indicated that their organisations or institutions did not have a formally established process for storing data beyond the life cycle of the project. Willingness to share data was generally high, but increased when data privacy was ensured. Robust governance frameworks increased the willingness to share, as did the regulation of access to data on shared platforms. Incentivising data sharing remains controversial. Respondents were satisfied with exchanging their data for co-authorship on publications (89.4%) and collaboration on projects (77.6%). However, respondents were split almost equally in terms of sharing their data for commercial gain. Regarding the process of managing data, 40.6% indicated that their organisations do not provide training on best practices for data management. This could be related to a lack of resources, chronic institutional under-investment, and suboptimal research training and mentorship in sub-Saharan Africa. The sustainability of data sharing may require ethical incentive structures to further encourage researchers and scientists. Tangible infrastructure to facilitate such sharing is a prerequisite. Capacity development in data governance for researchers and scientists is sorely needed.SignificanceData sharing is necessary to advance science, yet there are many constraints. In this study, we explored factors that promote a willingness to share, as well as constraining factors. Seeking potential solutions to improve data sharing is a scientific and ethical imperative. The standardisation of basic data sharing and data transfer agreements, and the development of a Data Access Committee will strengthen data governance and facilitate responsible data sharing in sub-Saharan Africa. Funders, institutions, researchers and scientists ought to jointly contribute to fair and equitable data use and sharing during and beyond the life cycle of research projects.
| S-EPMC11526389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLaws regulating substance use in pregnancy are changing and may have unintended consequences on scientific efforts to address the opioid epidemic. Yet, how these laws affect care and research is poorly understood.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews using purposive and snowball sampling of researchers who have engaged pregnant people experiencing substance use. We explored views on laws governing substance use in pregnancy and legal reform possibilities. Interviews were double coded. Data were examined using thematic analysis.ResultsWe interviewed 22 researchers (response rate: 71 per cent) and identified four themes: (i) harms of punitive laws, (ii) negative legal impacts on research, (iii) proposals for legal reform, and (iv) activism over time.DiscussionResearchers view laws penalizing substance use during pregnancy as failing to treat addiction as a disease and harming pregnant people and families. Respondents routinely made scientific compromises to protect participants. While some have successfully advocated for legal reform, ongoing advocacy is needed.ConclusionAdverse impacts from criminalizing substance use during pregnancy extend to research on this common and stigmatized problem. Rather than penalizing substance use in pregnancy, laws should approach addiction as a medical issue and support scientific efforts to improve outcomes for affected families.
| S-EPMC10332932 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Authorship is commonly used as the basis for the measurement of research productivity. It influences career progression and rewards, making it a valued commodity in a competitive scientific environment. To better understand authorship practices amongst collaborative teams, this study surveyed authors on collaborative journal articles published between 2011 and 2015. Of the 8364 respondents, 1408 responded to the final open-ended question, which solicited additional comments or remarks regarding the fair distribution of authorship in research teams. This paper presents the analysis of these comments, categorized into four main themes: (1) disagreements, (2) questionable behavior, (3) external influences regarding authorship, and (4) values promoted by researchers. Results suggest that some respondents find ways to effectively manage disagreements in a collegial fashion. Conversely, others explain how distribution of authorship can become a "blood sport" or a "horror story" which can negatively affect researchers' wellbeing, scientific productivity and integrity. Researchers fear authorship discussions and often try to avoid openly discussing the situation which can strain team interactions. Unethical conduct is more likely to result from deceit, favoritism, and questionable mentorship and may become more egregious when there is constant bullying and discrimination. Although values of collegiality, transparency and fairness were promoted by researchers, rank and need for success often overpowered ethical decision-making. This research provides new insight into contextual specificities related to fair authorship distribution that can be instrumental in developing applicable training tools to identify, prevent, and mitigate authorship disagreement.
| S-EPMC6891155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We conducted an international cross-sectional survey of biomedical researchers' perspectives on the reproducibility of research. This study builds on a widely cited 2016 survey on reproducibility and provides a biomedical-specific and contemporary perspective on reproducibility. To sample the community, we randomly selected 400 journals indexed in MEDLINE, from which we extracted the author names and emails from all articles published between October 1, 2020 and October 1, 2021. We invited participants to complete an anonymous online survey which collected basic demographic information, perceptions about a reproducibility crisis, perceived causes of irreproducibility of research results, experience conducting reproducibility studies, and knowledge of funding and training for research on reproducibility. A total of 1,924 participants accessed our survey, of which 1,630 provided useable responses (response rate 7% of 23,234). Key findings include that 72% of participants agreed there was a reproducibility crisis in biomedicine, with 27% of participants indicating the crisis was "significant." The leading perceived cause of irreproducibility was a "pressure to publish" with 62% of participants indicating it "always" or "very often" contributes. About half of the participants (54%) had run a replication of their own previously published study while slightly more (57%) had run a replication of another researcher's study. Just 16% of participants indicated their institution had established procedures to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research and 67% felt their institution valued new research over replication studies. Participants also reported few opportunities to obtain funding to attempt to reproduce a study and 83% perceived it would be harder to do so than to get funding to do a novel study. Our results may be used to guide training and interventions to improve research reproducibility and to monitor rates of reproducibility over time. The findings are also relevant to policy makers and academic leadership looking to create incentives and research cultures that support reproducibility and value research quality.
| S-EPMC11537370 | biostudies-literature