Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22747883›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2012

Seeking consent to genetic and genomic research in a rural Ghanaian setting: a qualitative study of the MalariaGEN experience.

Paulina Tindana, Susan Bull, Lucas Amenga-Etego, Jantina de Vries, Raymond Aborigo, Kwadwo Koram, Dominic Kwiatkowski, Michael Parker

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
10.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

88 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 136 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Research ethics · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 'Research ethics · 2024
    Article
  20. Review

28 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Paulina TindanaThe Ethox Centre, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Old Road Campus, Headington, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom.
Susan Bull
Lucas Amenga-Etego
Jantina de Vries
Raymond Aborigo
Kwadwo Koram
Dominic Kwiatkowski
Michael Parker
University of Oxford · GBGenomics (United Kingdom) · GBGhana Health Service · GHNavrongo Health Research Centre · GHNoguchi Memorial Institute for Medical Research · GH

Funding

Medical Research Council G0600718Medical Research Council G19/9Wellcome Trust 075491/Z/04Wellcome Trust 077012/Z/05/ZWellcome Trust 090532Wellcome Trust 090532/Z/09/ZWellcome Trust 096527Wellcome Trust 098051Wellcome Trust 77383/Z/05/ZWellcome Trust WT077383/Z/05/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSeeking consent for genetic and genomic research can be challenging, particularly in populations with low literacy levels, and in emergency situations. All of these factors were relevant to the MalariaGEN study of genetic factors influencing immune responses to malaria in northern rural Ghana. This study sought to identify issues arising in practice during the enrollment of paediatric cases with severe malaria and matched healthy controls into the MalariaGEN study.

methodsThe study used a rapid assessment incorporating multiple qualitative methods including in depth interviews, focus group discussions and observations of consent processes. Differences between verbal information provided during community engagement processes, and consent processes during the enrollment of cases and controls were identified, as well as the factors influencing the tailoring of such information.

resultsMalariaGEN participants and field staff seeking consent were generally satisfied with their understanding of the project and were familiar with aspects of the study relating to malaria. Some genetic aspects of the study were also well understood. Participants and staff seeking consent were less aware of the methodologies employed during genomic research and their implications, such as the breadth of data generated and the potential for future secondary research.Moreover, trust in and previous experience with the Navrongo Health Research Centre which was conducting the research influenced beliefs about the benefits of participating in the MalariaGEN study and subsequent decision-making about research participation.

conclusionsIt is important to recognise that some aspects of complex genomic research may be of less interest to and less well understood by research participants and that such gaps in understanding may not be entirely addressed by best practice in the design and conduct of consent processes. In such circumstances consideration needs to be given to additional protections for participants that may need to be implemented in such research, and how best to provide such protections.Capacity building for research ethics committees with limited familiarity with genetic and genomic research, and appropriate engagement with communities to elicit opinions of the ethical issues arising and acceptability of downstream uses of genome wide association data are likely to be important.

Indexed as

Rural PopulationCase-Control StudiesConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicFocus GroupsGenetic ResearchGenome-Wide Association StudyGhanaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInformed ConsentMalariaMetagenomicsNarrationQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID22747883
PMCPMC3441464
OpenAlexW2095440150

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.