ArticleJournal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE2019
Researchers' Perspectives on Informed Consent and Ethical Review of Biobank Research in South Africa: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current status and factors influencing research ethics knowledge and attitudes among pediatricians: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- Researchers' Perspectives Regarding Ethical Issues of Biobank Research in the Arab Region.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2024Article
- Broad consent for biobank research in South Africa - Towards an enabling ethico-legal framework.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- Ethical considerations for biobanking and use of genomics data in Africa: a narrative review.BMC medical ethics · 2023Review
- Health care users' acceptance of broad consent for storage of biological materials and associated data for research purposes in Uganda.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- Stakeholder perspectives on the ethico-legal dimensions of biobanking in South Africa.BMC medical ethics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is limited literature on the opinions and perspectives of researchers on the ethical issues in biobank research in South Africa. This study aimed to explore researchers' perspectives on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research in South Africa. An online survey was conducted among researchers and scientists at Stellenbosch University and the University of Kwazulu-Natal. The majority of researchers opined that broad consent is appropriate for biobank research. However, there was no consensus on the necessity for re-consent. Researchers were also in agreement that issues concerning informed consent and future use of samples require thorough discussions during the ethical review process. Overall, the attitude of researchers on informed consent and ethical review of biobank research was positive and ethically informed.
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.