ArticleBMC medical ethics2018
Rules of engagement: perspectives on stakeholder engagement for genomic biobanking research in South Africa.
Article in BMC medical ethics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Informed consent in genetic and genomic studies in Sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review of bioethical issues.BMC medical ethics · 2025Pooled it
- Holistic view of understanding genetic predisposition and perceptions of genomic research in African communities: tradition, trust and transformation.Journal of community genetics · 2026Review
- Perspectives of Research Ethics Committees on the Challenges of Human Genomic Research Participation in Ethiopia.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2025Article
- Decision-making and role preferences for receiving individual pharmacogenomic research results among participants at a Ugandan HIV research institute.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Community engagement conduct for genetics and genomics research: a qualitative study of the experiences and perspectives of key stakeholders in Uganda.BMC medical ethics · 2024Article
- Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024Article
- Ethical and social reflections on the proposed European Health Data Space.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2024Article
- Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- Ethical considerations for biobanking and use of genomics data in Africa: a narrative review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Review
- Breast Cancer Germline Genetic Counseling and Testing for Populations of African Heritage Globally: A Scoping Review on Research, Practice, and Bioethical Considerations.JCO global oncology · 2023Article
- How should communities be meaningfully engaged (if at all) when setting priorities for biomedical research? Perspectives from the biomedical research community.BMC medical ethics · 2023Article
- Research-Related Stakeholders' Perspectives on Sociocultural Considerations in Biobanking Practice in South Africa.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2023Article
- Stakeholder engagement in the development of genetically modified mosquitoes for malaria control in West Africa: lessons learned from 10 years of Target Malaria's work in Mali.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
- No person left behind: Mapping the health policy landscape for genomics research in the Caribbean.Lancet regional health. Americas · 2022Review
- Participant recall and understandings of information on biobanking and future genomic research: experiences from a multi-disease community-based health screening and biobank platform in rural South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2022Article
- Biological sample donation and informed consent for neurobiobanking: Evidence from a community survey in Ghana and Nigeria.PloS one · 2022Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- The role of causal knowledge in stigma considerations in African genomics research: Views of South African Xhosa people.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2021Article
- Researchers' perspectives on return of individual genetics results to research participants: a qualitative study.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2021Article
- Co-developing a common glossary with stakeholders for engagement on new genetic approaches for malaria control in a local African setting.Malaria journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundGenomic biobanking research is undergoing exponential growth in Africa raising a host of legal, ethical and social issues. Given the scientific complexity associated with genomics, there is a growing recognition globally of the importance of science translation and community engagement (CE) for this type of research, as it creates the potential to build relationships, increase trust, improve consent processes and empower local communities. Despite this level of recognition, there is a lack of empirical evidence of the practise and processes for effective CE in genomic biobanking in Africa.
methodsTo begin to address this vacuum, 17 in-depth face to face interviews were conducted with South African experts in genomic biobanking research and CE to provide insight into the process, benefits and challenges of CE in South Africa. Emerging themes were analysed using a contextualised thematic approach.
resultsSeveral themes emerged concerning the conduct of CE in genomic biobanking research in Africa. Although the literature tends to focus on the local community in CE, respondents in this study described three different layers of stakeholder engagement: community level, peer level and high level. Community level engagement includes potential participants, community advisory boards (CAB) and field workers; peer level engagement includes researchers, biobankers and scientists, while high level engagement includes government officials, funders and policy makers. Although education of each stakeholder layer is important, education of the community layer can be most challenging, due to the complexity of the research and educational levels of stakeholders in this layer.
conclusionCE is time-consuming and often requires an interdisciplinary research team approach. However careful planning of the engagement strategy, including an understanding of the differing layers of stakeholder engagement, and the specific educational needs at each layer, can help in the development of a relationship based on trust between the research team and various stakeholder groups. Since the community layer often comprises vulnerable populations in low and middle income countries (LMICs), co-development of innovative educational tools on genomic biobanking is essential. CE is clearly a component of a broader process best described as stakeholder engagement.
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.