ArticleBMC medical ethics2014
"When they see us, it's like they have seen the benefits!": experiences of study benefits negotiations in community-based studies on the Kenyan Coast.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review on ethical challenges of 'field' research in low-income and middle-income countries: respect, justice and beneficence for research staff?BMJ global health · 2021Pooled it
- What Do the Various Principles of Justice Mean Within the Concept of Benefit Sharing?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2016Pooled it
- Article
- "The most stress comes from witnessing the abuse of children" -challenges faced by research assistants in community-based research in Mtwara, Tanzania.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Community-Partnered Research appraisal tool for conducting, reporting and assessing community-based research.BMJ open · 2024Review
- The challenges and potential solutions of achieving meaningful consent amongst research participants in northern Thailand: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Considering Risks to Researchers and Staff in Low-Resource Settings during Public Health Crises: A Proposed Conceptual Model.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Culturally responsive research ethics: How the socio-ethical norms of Arr-nar/Kreng-jai inform research participation at the Thai-Myanmar border.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- 'Working relationships' across difference - a realist review of community engagement with malaria research.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- Rethinking benefit sharing in collaborative human genetic research from an Afrocommunitarian perspective.Frontiers in genetics · 2022Article
- Evaluating the Impact of Incentives on Clinical Trial Participation: Protocol for a Mixed Methods, Community-Engaged Study.JMIR research protocols · 2021Article
- Vulnerability, Agency, and the Research Encounter: Family Members' Experiences and Perceptions of Participating in an Observational Clinical Study in Kenya.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2021Article
- Model for developing context-sensitive responses to vulnerability in research: managing ethical dilemmas faced by frontline research staff in Kenya.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- Managing ancillary care in resource-constrained settings: Dilemmas faced by frontline HIV prevention researchers in a rural area in South Africa.International health · 2020Article
- Pioneering Informed Consent for Return of Research Results to Breast Cancer Patients Facing Barriers to Implementation of Genomic Medicine: The Kenyan BRCA1/2 Testing Experience Using Whole Exome Sequencing.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- "Money Helps": People who inject drugs and their perceptions of financial compensation and its ethical implications.Ethics & behavior · 2019Article
- Supporting the role of community members employed as research staff: Perspectives of community researchers working in addiction research.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2017Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBenefit sharing in health research has been the focus of international debates for many years, particularly in developing countries. Whilst increasing attention is being given to frameworks that can guide researchers to determine levels of benefits to participants, there is little empirical research from developing countries on the practical application of these frameworks, including in situations of extreme poverty and vulnerability. In addition, the voices of those who often negotiate and face issues related to benefits in practice - frontline researchers and fieldworkers (FWs) - are rarely included in these debates. Against this background, this paper reports on experiences of negotiating research participation and benefits as described by fieldworkers, research participants and researchers in two community based studies.
methodsThe findings reported here are from a broader social science study that explored the nature of interactions between fieldworkers and participants in two community based studies on the Kenyan Coast. Between January and July 2010, data were collected using participant observation, and through group discussions and in-depth interviews with 42 fieldworkers, 4 researchers, and 40 study participants.
resultsParticipants highly appreciated the benefits provided by studies, particularly health care benefits. Fieldworkers were seen by participants and other community members as the gatekeepers and conduits of benefits, even though those were not their formal roles. Fieldworkers found it challenging to ignore participant and community requests for more benefits, especially in situations of extreme poverty. However, responding to requests by providing different sorts and levels of benefits over time, as inadvertently happened in one study, raised expectations of further benefits and led to continuous negotiations between fieldworkers and participants.
conclusionsFieldworkers play an important intermediary role in research; a role imbued with multiple challenges and ethical dilemmas for which they require appropriate support. Further more specific empirical research is needed to inform the development of guidance for researchers on benefit sharing, and on responding to emergency humanitarian needs for this and other similar settings.
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.