Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25539983›Full record

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.

Dorcas M Kamuya, Vicki Marsh, Patricia Njuguna, Patrick Munywoki, Michael Parker, Sassy Molyneux

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
13.6field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Dorcas M KamuyaThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom. dkamuya@kemri-wellcome.org.
Vicki MarshThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom. vmarsh@kemri-wellcome.org.
Patricia NjugunaKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya. pnjuguna@kemri-wellcome.org.
Patrick MunywokiKEMRI-Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Kilifi, Kenya. pmunywoki@kemri-wellcome.org.
Michael ParkerThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom. michael.parker@ethox.ox.ac.uk.
Sassy MolyneuxThe Ethox Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX3 7LF, United Kingdom. smolyneux@kemri-wellcome.org.
Kenya Medical Research Institute · KEWellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust 084538Wellcome Trust 092654Wellcome Trust 096527
6 · The paper itself

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

BeneficenceCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchHealth Services Needs and DemandMoral ObligationsNegotiatingPovertyResearch PersonnelSocial ResponsibilityVulnerable PopulationsAdultDeveloping CountriesEthics, ResearchFemaleHealth PersonnelHumansInternational Cooperation

Identifiers

PMID25539983
PMCPMC4391117
OpenAlexW1763107718

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.