Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26135122›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2015

Exploring researchers' experiences of working with a researcher-driven, population-specific community advisory board in a South African schizophrenia genomics study.

Megan M Campbell, Ezra Susser, Jantina de Vries, Adam Baldinger, Goodman Sibeko, Michael M Mndini, Sibonile G Mqulwana, Odwa A Ntola, Raj S Ramesar, Dan J Stein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. "Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2022
    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

10 authors.

Megan M CampbellDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. mm.campbell@uct.ac.za.
Ezra SusserMailman School of Public Health, Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute, New York, NY, USA. ess8@cumc.columbia.edu.
Jantina de VriesDepartment of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. jantina.devries@uct.ac.za.
Adam BaldingerDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. adam.baldinger@uct.ac.za.
Goodman SibekoDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. goodmansibeko@gmail.com.
Michael M MndiniDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. michael.mndini@uct.ac.za.
Sibonile G MqulwanaDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. sibonile.mqulwana@uct.ac.za.
Odwa A NtolaDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. odwa.ntola@uct.ac.za.
Raj S RamesarMRC Human Genetics Research Unit, Division of Human Genetics, Institute of Infectious Disease and Molecular Medicine, Department of Clinical Laboratory Science, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa. raj.ramesar@uct.ac.za.
Dan J SteinDepartment of Psychiatry and Mental Health, University of Cape Town, J-Block, Groote Schuur Hospital, Observatory, Cape Town, South Africa. dan.stein@uct.ac.za.

Funding

3/3 GENOMICS OF SCHIZOPHRENIA IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN XHOSAU01MH096754 · NIMH · UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN · PI STEIN, DAN JOSEPH · 2013 to 2017
$3.2M
1/3 - Genomics of Schizophrenia in the South Africa XhosaU01MH096756 · NIMH · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SUSSER, EZRA S. · 2013 to 2017
$1.8M
NIMH NIH HHS 5U01MH096754NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH096754NIMH NIH HHS U01 MH096756
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunity engagement within biomedical research is broadly defined as a collaborative relationship between a research team and a group of individuals targeted for research. A Community Advisory Board (CAB) is one mechanism of engaging the community. Within genomics research CABs may be particularly relevant due to the potential implications of research findings drawn from individual participants on the larger communities they represent. Within such research, CABs seek to meet instrumental goals such as protecting research participants and their community from research-related risks, as well as intrinsic goals such as promoting the respect of participants and their community. However, successful community engagement depends on the degree to which CABs legitimately represent and engage with communities targeted for research. Currently, there is little literature describing the use of CABs in genomics research taking place in developing countries, and even less in the field of genomics research relating to mental illness. The aim of this article is to describe and consider the contributions made by a researcher-driven, population-specific CAB in a genomics of schizophrenia research project taking place in South Africa, from the perspective of the research team. DISCUSSION: Four broad discussion topics emerged during the CAB meetings namely: 1) informed consent procedures, 2) recruitment strategies, 3) patient illness beliefs and stigma experiences, and 4) specific ethical concerns relating to the project. The authors consider these discussions in terms of their contributions to instrumental and intrinsic goals of community engagement. The CAB gave valuable input on the consent processes and materials, recruitment strategies and suggested ways of minimizing the potential for stigma and discrimination. All of these contributions were of an instrumental nature, and helped improve the way in which the research took place. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, the CAB made a unique and important contribution relating to intrinsic functions such as promoting the respect and dignity of research participants and their community. This was particularly evident in ensuring sensitivity and respect of the community's traditional beliefs about schizophrenia and its treatment, and in this way promoting a respectful relationship between the research team and the participants.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesBiomedical ResearchCommunity ParticipationGenomicsResearcher-Subject RelationsResidence CharacteristicsAttitude of Health PersonnelCooperative BehaviorCultureDeveloping CountriesEthics, ResearchEthnicityGenomeHumansInformed ConsentPatient Selection

Identifiers

PMID26135122
PMCPMC4487967

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.