Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30565381›Full record

SynthesisTropical medicine & international health : TM & IH2019

The willingness to participate in biomedical research involving human beings in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Joyce L Browne, Connie O Rees, Johannes J M van Delden, Irene Agyepong, Diederick E Grobbee, Ama Edwin, Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch, Rieke van der Graaf

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Tropical medicine & international health : TM & IH, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Willingness to Use Male Contraceptive Pill: Spain-Mozambique Comparison.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The research output of rod-cone dystrophy genetics.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2022
    Review
  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

8 authors.

Joyce L BrowneJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Connie O ReesJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Irene AgyepongGhana Health Service, Research and Development Division, Accra, Ghana.
Diederick E GrobbeeJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Ama EdwinDepartment of Psychological Medicine and Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Health and Allied Sciences, Ho, Ghana.
Kerstin Klipstein-GrobuschJulius Global Health, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rieke van der GraafDepartment of Medical Humanities, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review reasons for the willingness to participate in biomedical human subjects research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

methodsFive databases were systematically searched for articles published between 2000 and 2017 containing the domain of 'human subjects research' in 'LMICs' and determinant 'reasons for (non)participation'. Reasons mentioned were extracted, ranked and results narratively described.

resultsNinety-four articles were included, 44 qualitative and 50 mixed-methods studies. Altruism, personal health benefits, access to health care, monetary benefit, knowledge, social support and trust were the most important reasons for participation. Primary reasons for non-participation were safety concerns, inconvenience, stigmatisation, lack of social support, confidentiality concerns, physical pain, efficacy concerns and distrust. Stigmatisation was a major concern in relation to HIV research. Reasons were similar across different regions, gender, non-patient or patient participants and real or hypothetical study designs.

conclusionsAddressing factors that affect (non-)participation in the planning process and during the conduct of research may enhance voluntary consent to participation and reduce barriers for potential participants.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchPatient ParticipationDeveloping CountriesHealth Services AccessibilityHumansInformed Consentbarriers to participateconsentement éclairéhealthinformed consentlow- and middle-income countriesobstacles à la participationpays à revenu faible ou intermédiaireraisons de la non-participationraisons de la participationreasons for non-participationreasons for participationsantévolonté de participerwillingness to participate

Identifiers

PMID30565381
PMCPMC6850431

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.