Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21890450›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2012

Conducting research with tribal communities: sovereignty, ethics, and data-sharing issues.

Anna Harding, Barbara Harper, Dave Stone, Catherine O'Neill, Patricia Berger, Stuart Harris, Jamie Donatuto

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 84 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
84citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

84 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Measuring Indigenous Cultural Strengths: a Systematic Review of a Decade of Approaches.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The Role of the Nurse Scientist as a Knowledge Broker.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2019
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Return of Individual Research Results: Participant Perspectives in a Longitudinal Community-Based Sample.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023
    Article
  20. Review

24 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

7 authors.

Anna HardingSchool of Biological and Population Health Sciences, College of Public Health and Human Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, USA. anna.harding@oregonstate.edu
Barbara Harper
Dave Stone
Catherine O'Neill
Patricia Berger
Stuart Harris
Jamie Donatuto

Funding

Research Experience and Training Coordination CoreP42ES016465 · NIEHS · OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY · PI Susan C Tilton · 2009 to 2026
$52.5M
NIEHS NIH HHS P42 ES016465NIEHS NIH HHS P42ES016465
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhen conducting research with American Indian tribes, informed consent beyond conventional institutional review board (IRB) review is needed because of the potential for adverse consequences at a community or governmental level that are unrecognized by academic researchers.

objectivesIn this article, we review sovereignty, research ethics, and data-sharing considerations when doing community-based participatory health-related or natural-resource-related research with American Indian nations and present a model material and data-sharing agreement that meets tribal and university requirements. DISCUSSION: Only tribal nations themselves can identify potential adverse outcomes, and they can do this only if they understand the assumptions and methods of the proposed research. Tribes must be truly equal partners in study design, data collection, interpretation, and publication. Advances in protection of intellectual property rights (IPR) are also applicable to IRB reviews, as are principles of sovereignty and indigenous rights, all of which affect data ownership and control.

conclusionsAcademic researchers engaged in tribal projects should become familiar with all three areas: sovereignty, ethics and informed consent, and IPR. We recommend developing an agreement with tribal partners that reflects both health-related IRB and natural-resource-related IPR considerations.

Indexed as

Ethics, ResearchIndians, North AmericanResearch DesignEthics Committees, ResearchHuman RightsHumansInformation DisseminationIntellectual Property

Identifiers

PMID21890450
PMCPMC3261947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.