Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29064073›Full record

ArticleJournal of community genetics2018

Genuine participation in participant-centred research initiatives: the rhetoric and the potential reality.

Oliver Feeney, Pascal Borry, Heike Felzmann, Lucia Galvagni, Ari Haukkala, Michele Loi, Salvör Nordal, Vojin Rakic, Brígida Riso, Sigrid Sterckx and 1 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of community genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Dwarna: a blockchain solution for dynamic consent in biobanking.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2020
    Article
  3. The Role of Participants in a Medical Information Commons.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2019
    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

11 authors at 9 institutions in 8 countries.

Oliver FeeneyCentre of Bioethical Research and Analysis, National University of Ireland (Galway), Galway, Republic of Ireland. feeney.oli@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3585-448X
Pascal BorryCentre for Biomedical Ethics and Law, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Heike FelzmannCentre of Bioethical Research and Analysis, National University of Ireland (Galway), Galway, Republic of Ireland.
Lucia GalvagniBruno Kessler Foundation, Trento, Italy.
Ari HaukkalaDepartment of Social Research, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.
Michele LoiInstitute for Biomedical Ethics and the History of Medicine and Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Salvör NordalCentre for Ethics, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Vojin RakicCenter for the Study of Bioethics, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
Brígida RisoInstituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIES-IUL, Lisbon, Portugal.
Sigrid SterckxBioethics Institute Ghent, Department of Philosophy & Moral Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Danya VearsLeuven Institute for Genomics and Society, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
KU Leuven · BEOllscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IEFondazione Bruno Kessler · ITGhent University · BEIscte – Instituto Universitário de Lisboa · PTUniversity of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Helsinki · FIUniversity of Iceland · ISUniversity of Zurich · CH

Funding

CHIP ME COST Action (IS1303)Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology SFRH/BD/100779/2014
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The introduction of Web 2.0 technology, along with a population increasingly proficient in Information and Communications Technology (ICT), coupled with the rapid advancements in genetic testing methods, has seen an increase in the presence of participant-centred research initiatives. Such initiatives, aided by the centrality of ICT interconnections, and the ethos they propound seem to further embody the ideal of increasing the participatory nature of research, beyond what might be possible in non-ICT contexts alone. However, the majority of such research seems to actualise a much narrower definition of 'participation'-where it is merely the case that such research initiatives have increased contact with participants through ICT but are otherwise non-participatory in any important normative sense. Furthermore, the rhetoric of participant-centred initiatives tends to inflate this minimalist form of participation into something that it is not, i.e. something genuinely participatory, with greater connections with both the ICT-facilitated political contexts and the largely non-ICT participatory initiatives that have expanded in contemporary health and research contexts. In this paper, we highlight that genuine (ICT-based) 'participation' should enable a reasonable minimum threshold of participatory engagement through, at least, three central participatory elements: educative, sense of being involved and degree of control. While we agree with criticisms that, at present, genuine participation seems more rhetoric than reality, we believe that there is clear potential for a greater ICT-facilitated participatory engagement on all three participatory elements. We outline some practical steps such initiatives could take to further develop these elements and thereby their level of ICT-facilitated participatory engagement.

Indexed as

ICTParticipant-centred researchParticipatory engagementWeb 2.0

Identifiers

PMID29064073
PMCPMC5849703
OpenAlexW2765675142

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.