ReviewDeveloping world bioethics2015
Sharing the Knowledge: Sharing Aggregate Genomic Findings with Research Participants in Developing Countries.
Review in Developing world bioethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Returning aggregate research results to participants: a scoping review of current practices, preferences and challenges.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Perspectives on returning individual and aggregate genomic research results to study participants and communities in Kenya: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Whole Exome Sequencing in South Africa: Stakeholder Views on Return of Individual Research Results and Incidental Findings.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Symbolic Legislation and the Regulation of Stroke Biobanking and Genomics Research in Sub-Saharan Africa.The theory and practice of legislation · 2021Article
- Do solidarity and reciprocity obligations compel African researchers to feedback individual genetic results in genomics research?BMC medical ethics · 2020Article
- Informed consent in genomic research and biobanking: taking feedback of findings seriously.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2020Article
- Participants' perspectives and preferences on clinical trial result dissemination: The TRUST Thyroid Trial experience.HRB open research · 2018Article
- Open-access bacterial population genomics: BIGSdb software, the PubMLST.org website and their applications.Wellcome open research · 2018Article
- Parents and Provider Perspectives on the Return of Genomic Findings for Cleft Families in Africa.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
- Revisiting the Obligation to Share Aggregate Results with Research Participants in the Era of Open Science.Ethics & human researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Returning research results to participants is recognised as an obligation that researchers should always try to fulfil. But can we ascribe the same obligation to researchers who conduct genomics research producing only aggregated findings? And what about genomics research conducted in developing countries? This paper considers Beskow's et al. argument that aggregated findings should also be returned to research participants. This recommendation is examined in the context of genomics research conducted in developing countries. The risks and benefits of attempting such an exercise are identified, and suggestions on ways to avoid some of the challenges are proposed. I argue that disseminating the findings of genomic research to participating communities should be seen as sharing knowledge rather than returning results. Calling the dissemination of aggregate, population level information returning results can be confusing and misleading as participants might expect to receive individual level information. Talking about sharing knowledge is a more appropriate way of expressing and communicating the outcome of population genomic research. Considering the knowledge produced by genomics research a worthwhile output that should be shared with the participants and approaching the exercise as a 'sharing of knowledge', could help mitigate the risks of unrealistic expectations and misunderstanding of findings, whilst promoting trusting and long lasting relationships with the participating communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.