ReviewBMC medical ethics2020
A qualitative study exploring stakeholder perspectives on the use of biological samples for future unspecified research in Malawi.
Review in BMC medical ethics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Research Review: A scoping review exploring the needs, barriers, and facilitators to the collection of biological data in adolescence for mental health research.Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines · 2026Review
- Navigating tensions between scientific advancement and ethical practice in biobanking: a qualitative study in Japan.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Transparency in the secondary use of health data: assessing the status quo of guidance and best practices.Royal Society open science · 2025Article
- Research participants' perception of ethical issues in stroke genomics and neurobiobanking research in Africa.PloS one · 2025Article
- Can biosampling really be "non-invasive"? An examination of the socially invasive nature of physically non-invasive biosampling in urban and rural Malawi.Global bioethics = Problemi di bioetica · 2024Article
- Stakeholder views on future use of biological samples in Malawi and South Africa.Global bioethics enquiry · 2023Article
- Elemental Analysis of Laryngeal Cancer Patients in Comparison with Controls Using Scalp Hair as an Analytical Tool.Biological trace element research · 2023Article
- Genetic and Genomic Researchers' Perspectives on Biological Sample Sharing in Collaborative Research in Uganda: A Qualitative Study.Journal of empirical research on human research ethics : JERHRE · 2023Article
- Online Training as a Means to Improve the Understanding of Ethical, Legal, and Social Aspects of Biobanking Research: Stakeholder Perspectives from South Africa.Biopreservation and biobanking · 2022Article
- Health care users' acceptance of broad consent for storage of biological materials and associated data for research purposes in Uganda.Wellcome open research · 2022Article
- A blank check or a global public good? A qualitative study of how ethics review committee members in Colombia weigh the risks and benefits of broad consent for data and sample sharing during a pandemic.PLOS global public health · 2022Article
- Knowledge, perceptions and attitude of Egyptian physicians towards biobanking issues.PloS one · 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is growing interest in the collection, storage and reuse of biological samples for future research. Storage and future use of biological samples raise ethical concerns and questions about approaches that safeguard the interests of participants. The situation is further complicated in Africa where there is a general lack of governing ethical frameworks that could guide the research community on appropriate approaches for sample storage and use. Furthermore, there is limited empirical data to guide development of such frameworks. A qualitative study to address this gap was conducted with key stakeholders in Malawi to understand their experiences and perspectives regarding storage and usage of samples for future research.
methodsThis study conducted 13 in-depth interviews with ethics committee members, regulators and researchers, and five focus group discussions with community representatives and clinical trial participants in Malawi. Interviews and focus group discussions were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed.
resultsOn the current regulatory guidelines that governs the collection, storage and reuse of samples in Malawi, participants highlighted their different understanding of it, with some indicating that it prohibited the reuse and sharing of samples, while others believed it permitted. Views on the informed consent model used in Malawi, some stakeholders expressed that the current model limited options for sample contributors regarding future use. Researchers supported storing samples for future use in order to maximize their value and reduce research costs. However, they expressed concern over the exportation of samples highlighting that it could lead to misuse and would not support the development of research capacity within Malawi. They recommended use of broad consent or tiered consent and establishment of biobanks to address these concerns.
conclusionsStudy findings highlighted the need for a review of the current regulatory guideline and the development of infrastructure to support the use of stored biological samples for future use among the research community in Malawi. At the moment, there are ethical and practical concerns arising from the collection, storage and secondary use of biological samples make it hard to reconcile scientific progress and the protection of participants.
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.