Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29482536›Full record

ArticleBMC medical ethics2018

Rules of engagement: perspectives on stakeholder engagement for genomic biobanking research in South Africa.

Ciara Staunton, Paulina Tindana, Melany Hendricks, Keymanthri Moodley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Ready, Set, Sort! A User-Guide to Card Sorts for Community-Engaged Empirical Bioethics.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  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

4 authors.

Ciara StauntonDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa. ciara.staunton@gmail.com.
Paulina TindanaNavrongo Health Research Centre, Ghana Health Service, Navrongo, Ghana.
Melany HendricksDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Keymanthri MoodleyDepartment of Medicine, Centre for Medical Ethics and Law, Faculty of Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa.

Funding

Shared Core: Biobanking, Bioinformatics and Data ManagementU54HG006938 · NHGRI · WITS HEALTH CONSORTIUM (PTY), LTD · PI RAMSAY, MICHELE MICHELE · 2012 to 2022
$12.2M
Community Engagement for H3Africa Biobanking Research: The Tygerberg ModelU01HG008222 · NHGRI · STELLENBOSCH UNIVERSITY · PI MOODLEY, KEYMANTHRI · 2015 to 2017
$205k
NHGRI NIH HHS U01 HG008222NHGRI NIH HHS U01HG008222NHGRI NIH HHS U54 HG006938
6 · The paper itself

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

Biological Specimen BanksBiomedical ResearchCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchCommunity ParticipationGenome, HumanGenomicsStakeholder ParticipationEthics, ResearchHumansResearch PersonnelSouth AfricaSurveys and QuestionnairesTrustCommunity engagementEthicsGenomic biobanking researchH3Africa

Identifiers

PMID29482536
PMCPMC5828421

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.