A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Thaldar D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8376038 | biostudies-literature | 2021
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
A virtual deliberative public engagement study on heritable genome editing among South Africans: Study protocol.
Thaldar Donrich D Townsend Beverley B Botes Marietjie M Shozi Bonginkosi B Pillay Siddharthiya S
PloS one 20210819 8
This article outlines the protocol for a prospective study for virtual deliberative public engagement on heritable genome editing in humans. The study intends to create a platform for a diverse group of 25-30 South Africans to engage with a facilitator and each other on 15 policy questions regarding heritable genome editing, with a focus on: a) the prevention of heritable genetic conditions; b) editing for immunity; and c) editing for enhancement. The aim is to understand the views on these issu ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This paper reports the results of a public engagement study on heritable human genome editing (HHGE) carried out in South Africa, which was conducted in accordance with a study protocol that was published in this journal in 2021. This study is novel as it is the first public engagement study on HHGE in Africa. It used a deliberative public engagement (DPE) methodology, entailing inter alia that measures were put in place to ensure that potential participants became informed about HHGE, and that deliberations between the participants were facilitated with the aim of seeking consensus. A diverse group of 30 persons was selected to participate in the DPE study, which took place via Zoom over three consecutive weekday evenings. The main results are: Provided that HHGE is safe and effective, an overwhelming majority of participants supported allowing the use of HHGE to prevent genetic health conditions and for immunity against TB and HIV/Aids, while significant majorities opposed allowing HHGE for enhancement. The dominant paradigm during the deliberations was balancing health benefits (and associated improvements in quality of life) with unforeseen health risks (such as loss of natural immunity). The seriousness of a health condition emerged as the determining factor for the policy choice of whether to allow an application of HHGE. More generally, equal access to HHGE qua healthcare service featured as an important value, and it was uncontested that the South African government should allocate resources to promote scientific research into HHGE. These results are aligned with the policy principles for regulating HHGE in South Africa suggested by Thaldar et al. They call for urgent revision of South African ethics guidelines that currently prohibit research on HHGE, and for dedicated HHGE legal regulations that provide a clear and comprehensive legal pathway for researchers who intend to conduct HHGE research and clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9704621 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Sources of public and private data and ways to link them continue to evolve. This offers new opportunities for research, and new reasons for data-holding organisations to form partnerships. While research using these data can be beneficial, there is also a potential for negative consequences for some individuals or groups, including unintended or unanticipated effects. It is important to consult the public on how we might achieve both opportunities to link different types of data for research purposes, and protections against the misuse of data and the possibility of negative consequences. Combining data sources for research was the topic of four days of deliberation held in British Columbia, Canada in late 2019. Public deliberation events bring diverse groups of people together to give direct input to policy makers, through carefully structured in-depth discussion on issues that are controversial and/or a source of public concern. Participants discussed whether data from electronic medical records should be used for research purposes, whether it is acceptable to combine data from public and private sources, who should authorise its use in research, and how a public advisory group on data use might be structured. Over four days, 29 residents of BC developed 17 deliberative conclusions that can be grouped into four broad topic areas: balancing benefit and potential harms when linking data; the protections that are expected to govern use of data; the type of authorisation required; and how the public should be involved in an ongoing way. Overall, the public is very supportive of research as long as oversight and controls are in place, including ongoing input from members of the public. Deliberative conclusions from this event provide essential public input on the use of linked data for research, in particular when those data come from multiple sources. This is important information as policy-makers continue to develop legislation and practices around the use and linkage of both public and private sources of data.
| S-EPMC11606539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth system expenditure on cancer drugs is rising rapidly in many OECD countries given the costly new treatments and increased rates of use due to a growing and ageing population. These factors put considerable strain on the sustainability of health systems worldwide, sparking public debate among clinicians, pharmaceutical companies, policy-makers and citizens on issues of affordability and equity. We engaged Canadians through a series of deliberative public engagement events to determine their priorities for making cancer drug funding decisions fair and sustainable in Canada's publicly financed health system.MethodsAn approach to deliberation was developed based on the McMaster Health Forum's citizen panels and the established Burgess and O'Doherty model of deliberative public engagement. Six deliberations were held across Canada in 2016. Transcripts were coded in NVivo and analysed to determine where participants' views converged and diverged. Recommendations were grouped thematically.ResultsA total of 115 Canadians participated in the deliberative events and developed 86 recommendations. Recommendations included the review and regular re-review of approved drugs using 'real-world' evidence on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness; prioritisation of treatments that restore patients' independence, mental health and general well-being; ensuring that decision processes, results and their rationales are transparent; and commitment to people with similar needs receiving the same care regardless of where in Canada they live.ConclusionsThe next steps for policy-makers should be to develop mechanisms for (1) re-reviewing effectiveness and cost-effectiveness data for all cancer drugs; (2) making disinvestments in cancer drugs that satisfy requirements relating to grandfathering and compassionate access; (3) ensuring fair and equitable access to cancer drugs for all Canadians; and (4) fostering a pan-Canadian approach to cancer drug funding decisions.
| S-EPMC6367823 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public engagement in priority-setting for health is increasingly recognized as a means to ensure more ethical, inclusive and legitimate decision-making processes, especially in the context of Universal Health Coverage where demands outweigh the available resources and difficult decisions need to be made. Deliberative approaches are often viewed as especially useful in considering social values and balancing trade-offs, however, implementation of deliberative engagement tools for priority-setting is scant, especially in low- and middle-income settings. In order to address this gap, we implemented a context-specific public deliberation tool in a rural community in South Africa to determine priorities for a health services package. Qualitative data were analysed from seven group deliberations using the engagement tool. The analysis focused on understanding the deliberative process, what the participants prioritized, the reasons for these selections and how negotiations took place within the groups. The deliberations demonstrated that the groups often considered curative services to be more important than primary prevention which related to the perceived lack of efficacy of existing health education and prevention programmes in leading to behaviour change. The groups engaged deeply with trade-offs between costly treatment options for HIV/AIDS and those for non-communicable disease. Barriers to healthcare access were considered especially important by all groups and some priorities included investing in more mobile clinics. This study demonstrates that deliberative engagement methods can be successful in helping communities balance trade-offs and in eliciting social values around health priorities. The findings from such deliberations, alongside other evidence and broader ethical considerations, have the potential to inform decision-making with regard to health policy design and implementation.
| S-EPMC8428615 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDeliberative dialogues (DDs) are used in policy-making and healthcare research to enhance knowledge exchange and research implementation strategies. They allow organized dissemination and integration of relevant research, contextual considerations, and input from diverse stakeholder perspectives. Despite recent interest in involving patient and public perspectives in the design and development of healthcare services, DDs typically involve only professional stakeholders. A DD took place in May 2019 that aimed to improve the social environment (eg, safety, social inclusion) and decrease social isolation in a rent-geared-to-income housing complex in a large urban community. Tenants of the housing complex, public health, primary care, and social service providers participated. This study aimed to determine how including community tenants impacted the planning and execution of a DD, including adjustments made to the traditional DD model to improve accessibility.MethodsA Core Working Group (CWG) and Steering Committee coordinated with researchers to plan the DD, purposefully recruit participants, and determine appropriate accommodations for tenants. A single mixed-methods case study was used to evaluate the DD process. Meeting minutes, field notes, and researchers' observations were collected throughout all stages. Stakeholders' contributions to and perception of the DD were assessed using participant observation, survey responses, and focus groups (FGs).Results34 participants attended the DD and 28 (82%) completed the survey. All stakeholder groups rated the overall DD experience positively and valued tenants' involvement. The tenants heavily influenced the planning and DD process, including decisions about key DD features. Suggestions to improve the experience for tenants were identified.ConclusionThese findings demonstrate the viability of and provide recommendations for DDs involving public participants. Like previous DDs, participants found the use of engaged facilitators, issue briefs, and off-the-record deliberations useful. Similarly, professional stakeholders did not highly value consensus as an output, although it was highly valued among tenants, as was actionability.
| S-EPMC9818103 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Gene editing is an emerging technology with diverse applications in the making, including in livestock. While the technology is commonly represented as offering unbounded possibilities and societal benefit, it remains unclear how to characterise public views and the process through which responses are developed. Rather than simply being about individual attitudes, beliefs or preferences, we explicate an interpretative approach that seeks to understand how people make sense of the technology in the form of shared cultural idioms and stories. Based on five anticipatory focus group discussions with Dutch publics, we found the prevalence of five narratives shaping public talk, namely, technological fix, the market rules, in pursuit of perfection, finding the golden mean and governance through care. We explore the implications of these findings for governance and reflect on the virtues of sophrosyne and phronesis as offering ways to reconfigure the practice and politics of gene editing.
| S-EPMC9902986 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Ferment: An outreach project using Nanopore 16S amplicon sequencing to investigate fermented foods
| PRJEB29723 | ENA
Project description:BACKGROUND:Spending on cancer drugs has risen dramatically in recent years compared to other areas of health care, due in part to higher prices associated with newly approved drugs and increased demand for these drugs. Addressing this situation requires making difficult trade-offs between cost, harms, and ability to benefit when using public resources, making it important for policy makers to have input from many people affected by the issue, including citizens. METHODS:In September 2014, a deliberative public engagement event was conducted in Vancouver, British Columbia (BC), on the topic of priority setting and costly cancer drugs. The aim of the study was to gain citizens' input on the topic and have them generate recommendations that could inform cancer drug funding decisions in BC. A market research company was engaged to recruit members of the BC general public to deliberate over two weekends (four days) on how best to allocate resources for expensive cancer treatments. Participants were stratified based on the 2006 census data for BC. Participants were asked to discuss disinvestment, intravenous versus oral chemotherapy delivery, and decision governance. All sessions were audio recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using NVivo 11 software. RESULTS:Twenty-four individuals participated in the event and generated 30 recommendations. Participants accepted the principle of resource scarcity and the need of governments to make difficult trade-offs when allocating health-care resources. They supported the view that cost-benefit thresholds must be set for high-cost drugs. They also expected reasonable health benefits in return for large expenditures, and supported the view that some drugs do not merit funding. Participants also wanted drug funding decisions to be made in a non-partisan and transparent way. CONCLUSION:The recommendations from the Vancouver deliberation can provide guidance to policy makers in BC and may be useful in challenging pricing by pharmaceutical companies.
| S-EPMC5941483 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelecting effective implementation strategies to support guideline-concordant dental care is a complex process. We are drawing on data collected during the DISGO study to reflect on barriers we encountered in implementing a deliberative engagement process for discussing implementation strategies relevant to the evidence-based guideline targeted in this intervention. The goal is to identify factors that may influence the success of deliberative engagement as a technique to involve healthcare staff in identifying priorities for implementation strategies.MethodsWe drew on online chat transcripts from the deliberative engagement forums collected during the DISGO study. The chat transcripts were automatically generated for each discussion and captured the written exchanges between participants and moderators in all participating dental clinics. Chat transcripts were analyzed following a content analysis approach.ResultsOur findings revealed barriers to the successful implementation of deliberative engagement in the context of the DISGO study. Participants were not familiar with the materials that had been prepared for the forum and lacked familiarity with the topic of deliberation. Participants also did not share divergent viewpoints and reinforced existing ideas rather than introducing new ideas.ConclusionsIn order to ensure that obstacles that were encountered in this study are not repeated, it is important to carefully consider how staff can effectively be prepared for the deliberations. Participants must be familiar with the content of the guideline, and most questions about the content and evidence should be answered before the deliberative engagement sessions. If perspectives among staff on a guideline are homogenous, briefing materials should introduce perspectives that complement existing views among staff. It is also necessary to create an environment in which staff are comfortable introducing opinions that may not be held by the majority of colleagues.Trial registrationThis project is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with ID NCT04682730. The trial was first registered on 12/18/2020. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04682730 .
| S-EPMC10512594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Public trust is critical in any project requiring significant public support, both in monetary terms and to encourage participation. The research community has widely recognized the centrality of public trust, garnered through community consultation, to the success of large-scale epidemiology. This paper examines the potential utility of the deliberative democracy methodology within the public health research setting. A deliberative democracy event was undertaken in Tasmania, Australia, as part of a wider program of community consultation regarding the potential development of a Tasmanian Biobank. Twenty-five Tasmanians of diverse backgrounds participated in two weekends of deliberation; involving elements of information gathering; discussion; identification of issues and formation of group resolutions. Participants demonstrated strong support for a Tasmanian Biobank and their deliberations resulted in specific proposals in relation to consent; privacy; return of results; governance; funding; and, commercialization and benefit sharing. They exhibited a high degree of satisfaction with the event, and confidence in the outcomes. Deliberative democracy methodology is a useful tool for community engagement that addresses some of the limitations of traditional consultation methods.
| S-EPMC4282883 | biostudies-literature