Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27724893›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2016

"It's all about trust": reflections of researchers on the complexity and controversy surrounding biobanking in South Africa.

Keymanthri Moodley, Shenuka Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical ethics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Trust and Support for Cancer Research Biobanks: Insights from Cancer Patients in Poland.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Exchanging words: Engaging the challenges of sharing qualitative research data.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    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

2 authors.

Keymanthri MoodleyCentre for Medical Ethics and Law, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa. km@sun.ac.za.
Shenuka SinghCentre for Medical Ethics and Law, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa.

Funding

ARESA - Advancing Research Ethics training in Southern AfricaR25TW008981 · FIC · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI · 2011 to 2015
$1.2M
Community Engagement for H3Africa Biobanking Research: The Tygerberg ModelU01HG008222 · NHGRI · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI · 2015 to 2017
$205k
FIC NIH HHS R25 TW008981NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008222
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiobanks are precariously situated at the intersection of science, genetics, genomics, society, ethics, the law and politics. This multi-disciplinarity has given rise to a new discourse in health research involving diverse stakeholders. Each stakeholder is embedded in a unique context and articulates his/her biobanking activities differently. To researchers, biobanks carry enormous transformative potential in terms of advancing scientific discovery and knowledge. However, in the context of power asymmetries in Africa and a distrust in science born out of historical exploitation, researchers must balance the scientific imperative of collecting, storing and sharing high quality biological samples with obligations to donors/participants, communities, international collaborators, regulatory and ethics authorities. To date, researcher perspectives on biobanking in South Africa have not been explored and documented.

methodsIn-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 21 researchers - 8 in the Western Cape, 3 in Gauteng and 10 in Kwa-Zulu Natal. Interviews lasted approximately 40-60 min and were audiotaped with consent. Thematic analysis of the transcribed interviews was conducted by the co-authors.

resultsResearchers articulated serious concerns over standardised regulatory approaches that failed to consider the heterogeneity of biobanks. Given that biobanks differ considerably, guidelines and RECs need to stratify risk accordingly and governance processes and structures must be flexible. While RECs were regarded as an important component of the governance structure researchers expressed concern about their expertise in biobanking. Operational management of biobanks was regarded as an ethical imperative and a pre-requisite to building trust during consent processes. While broad general consent was preferred, tiered consent was thought to be more consistent with respect for autonomy and building trust. Material Transfer Agreements (MTAs) were often lacking when biosamples were exported and this was perceived to impact negatively on trust. On the other hand, researchers believed that authentic community engagement would help to build trust.

conclusionBuilding trust will best be achieved via a system of governance structures and processes that precede the establishment of a biobank and monitor progress from the point of sample collection through to future use, including export. Such governance structures must be robust and must include comprehensive national legislation, policy and contextualised guidelines. Currently such governance infrastructure appears to be lacking in many African countries including South Africa. Capacity development of all stakeholders including REC members will enhance expeditious and efficient review of biobanking protocols which in turn will reinforce trust in the researcher-donor relationship. Science translation and community engagement in biobanking is integral to the success of biobanking in South Africa.

Indexed as

AttitudeInformed ConsentResearch PersonnelSocial ResponsibilityTrustBiological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchEthics Committees, ResearchEthics, ResearchHumansQualitative ResearchSouth AfricaSpecimen HandlingBiobankingResearchersSouth AfricaTrust

Identifiers

PMID27724893
PMCPMC5057490

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.