Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20633282›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2010

Experiences with community engagement and informed consent in a genetic cohort study of severe childhood diseases in Kenya.

Vicki M Marsh, Dorcas M Kamuya, Albert M Mlamba, Thomas N Williams, Sassy S Molyneux

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
62citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

62 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 96 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The reported impact of public involvement in biobanks: A scoping review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020
    Article
  20. Article

2 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Vicki M MarshKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI) Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya. vmarsh@kilifi.kemri-wellcome.org
Dorcas M Kamuya
Albert M Mlamba
Thomas N Williams
Sassy S Molyneux
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KENuffield Orthopaedic Centre · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust GR074314MA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe potential contribution of community engagement to addressing ethical challenges for international biomedical research is well described, but there is relatively little documented experience of community engagement to inform its development in practice. This paper draws on experiences around community engagement and informed consent during a genetic cohort study in Kenya to contribute to understanding the strengths and challenges of community engagement in supporting ethical research practice, focusing on issues of communication, the role of field workers in 'doing ethics' on the ground and the challenges of community consultation.

methodsThe findings are based on action research methods, including analysis of community engagement documentation and the observations of the authors closely involved in their development and implementation. Qualitative and quantitative content analysis has been used for documentation of staff meetings and trainings, a meeting with 24 community leaders, and 40 large public and 70 small community group meetings. Meeting minutes from a purposive sample of six community representative groups have been analysed using a thematic framework approach.

resultsField workers described challenges around misunderstandings about research, perceived pressure for recruitment and challenges in explaining the study. During consultation, leaders expressed support for the study and screening for sickle cell disease. In community meetings, there was a common interpretation of research as medical care. Concerns centred on unfamiliar procedures. After explanations of study procedures to leaders and community members, few questions were asked about export of samples or the archiving of samples for future research.

conclusionsCommunity engagement enabled researchers to take account of staff and community opinions and issues during the study and adapt messages and methods to address emerging ethical challenges. Field workers conducting informed consent faced complex issues and their understanding, attitudes and communication skills were key influences on ethical practice. Community consultation was a challenging concept to put into practice, illustrating the complexity of assessing information needs and levels of deliberation that are appropriate to a given study.

Indexed as

Community ParticipationChildCohort StudiesEthics, ResearchGenetic ResearchHumansInformed ConsentKenyaQualitative ResearchResearch Personnel

Identifiers

PMID20633282
PMCPMC2918624
OpenAlexW2130874001

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.